Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (ANAESTHETICS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.5 a.m.

Viscountess Davidson: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope not to detain the House too long, but this is a rather technical Bill which I am anxious to make as clear as possible. It will be necessary for me to keep closely to my notes, because I am neither an expert nor a veterinary surgeon..
The main object of the Bill is to bring properly up to date the law relating to the use of anaesthetics in animal operations. There has been no legislation on this some what technical subject since the Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1919. That was the first Act to make anaesthetics compulsory for certain operations on animals. During the last 35 years, however, there have been many important advances in the field of anaesthesia and in the range and development of anaesthetic agents now suitable for application to animals. Again, there have been many developments in regard to new operations on animals, and the invention of new techniques for applying anaesthesia in such cases. In those circumstances, the veterinary profession has for some time been unhappy about the present inadequacy of the 1919 Act, which it considers to be far too rigid and limited in its scope.
The Schedule to that Act has, to a very considerable extent, become out of date, and I understand that some of the operations for which general anaesthesia is

compulsory under the Schedule could be far more humanely performed with the use of a modern type of local anaesthesia. For instance, the removal of an ovary in a bovine must be done under general anaesthesia, but I am assured that in modern conditions such operations are far more efficiently performed with the animal standing, under a spinal anaesthetic.
The operation of stripping the sole or wall from the claw or hoof may be performed, without any anaesthetic, on any animal except the horse, where a general anaesthetic is scheduled despite the fact that the local anaesthetic known as nerve block anaesthesia is more easily, more frequently and more efficiently used on the horse than on any other animal. The 1919 Act makes anaesthesia compulsory for operations on extensive tumours in a horse, but not in the case of dog, the species in which such operations are most often performed.
Rare operations such as a quitter in the horse and enucleation of the eyeball are included in the 1919 Act, whereas many more common major operations are not included, even though in some cases they require very complicated anaesthesia. Such operations include the reducing of fractures and dislocations, the opening of joints, the pinning and screwing of bones, amputations, operations on chest, lungs, heart, brain, etc. Dental operations on horses are included in the 1919 Act, but there is no reference to tooth extraction for dogs, in which dental disease is most common.
Under this Bill the use of anaesthetics will be compulsory for all except minor operations upon all animals, but not upon birds, fish or reptiles. The latter group have been excluded because, up to the present time, no completely satisfactory methods of an aesthetising all types of birds, fish, or reptiles have been discovered. The placing of this Bill on the Statute Book, therefore, would be a considerable advance towards ensuring humane conditions in animal operations. It would also give the veterinary profession a better opportunity of taking advantage of all up-to-date scientific developments in the application of an aesthesia. I must make it clear again—and this I think will be apparent to the House—that I myself am in no way


an expert in these matters, but I am satisfied from everything I have read that the Bill is a necessary and desirable Measure.
The original draft of this Bill was introduced in another place at a late stage last Session, and obtained an unopposed Second Reading there on 27th October, but it could not make any further progress before the Session ended a few days later. That Bill was prepared by the British Veterinary Association, which is the equivalent, in the veterinary field, of the British Medical Association. Not only had it the support of the veterinary profession, including that of the Scottish Branch of the British Veterinary Association, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, but also the support, in principle, of the main agricultural interests concerned, that is to say, the National Farmers' Union, and the National Cattle Breeders' Association, and also the British Horse Society and the Kennel Club. The R.S.P.C.A. has also made it clear that, in principle, it is a supporter of the Bill, as is the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals.
When the Bill came up for Second Reading in another place, on 27th October, it was made clear by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture that the Government, too, were fully in support of the Bill in principle. Finally, I am informed that the British Veterinary Association— which, as I have already indicated, has been taking a leading part in this matter—has, so far, not been informed of any opposition from any quarter. After the Bill obtained its Second Reading in another place it was carefully scrutinised by the Ministry of Agriculture, in consultation with the Scottish Office and the Parliamentary draftsmen. As a result of that scrutiny, certain amendments were suggested by the Ministry, and these have been incorporated in this Bill.
I now come to the main points in the Bill. First, it repeals the Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1919, which I have already shown to be out of date. It then goes on to provide, in Clause 1, that, henceforward, any operation which is performed on any kind of animal, with the exception of birds, fish and reptiles, without the administration of an

an aesthetic to prevent the animal feeling pain throughout the operation
…shall be deemed…to be an operation which is performed without due care and humanity…
within the meaning of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911.
In that Act it is made an offence of cruelty, subject to a minimum penalty of £25 or three months' imprisonment, to submit any animal to any operation which is performed without due care and humanity, so that if and when this Bill becomes law it will be an offence, subject to certain exceptions contained in the First Schedule, to perform any operations upon any animals without an anaesthetic.
Under Clause 1 (2) an operation is defined, and provision is made for the exclusion of certain minor operations set out in the First Schedule. Under subsection (3) the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland is given the power to make alterations to an important paragraph—paragraph 6 of the First Schedule. I understand that this Schedule was drawn up with considerable care by the British Veterinary Association, in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture. To some extent—and I know that the House will understand this—it is necessary to compromise if a Bill of this kind is to reach the Statute Book and be adequately enforced.
There are some points in the Schedule to which I want to draw particular attention. It exempts an operation involved in any experiment authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, since conditions under which these experiments take place are already controlled by other means. It exempts, for obvious reasons, any operations which are tantamount to first-aid for the purpose of saving life or relieving pain. It exempts the docking of a puppy's tail and the amputation of the dew claws of a dog before its eyes are opened. It exempts any minor operations which would normally be performed by a layman and which, otherwise, would come within the definition of the Bill—artificial insemination, ear punching, etc.—and finally, it exempts the castration of certain male animals up to a certain maximum age.
Some people may think that some of those ages are too low or too high, but if there are any material differences of


opinion, I suggest that they can be fully debated during the Committee stage. In arriving at these ages the British Veterinary Association was concerned to ensure, first, a reasonable degree of humanity and, secondly, a reasonable chance of enforceability.
I want to refer, briefly, to the great work which the veterinary profession has accomplished over recent years. This profession, which numbers no more than 5,500, has been largely responsible for eradicating the major killing diseases from our livestock in this country. It has enabled us to build up an immense prestige as the stud farm of the world, and it has played a most valuable part in enabling our dairy industry to increase milk production to its present high level.
Those of us who have anything to do with the country know that veterinary surgeons are always ready to come to our aid at any time of the night or day, and how well we know the relief from anxiety when, with a sick animal on our hands, and living far in the country, that veterinary surgeon arrives at any hour of the night or day. It is, therefore, a great pleasure to me to assist this profession by bringing forward this Bill to enable all concerned to take greater advantage of the advances which have been made in veterinary surgery, for which they themselves are mainly responsible.
In a very delightful book, which many hon. Members may have read—Lady Emily Lutyens's book, "A Blessed Girl"—there is a description of Lady Anne, the wife of Wilfred Blunt. She was the granddaughter of Lord Byron by his daughter, Ada, who married Lord Lovelace. She was a very kind and lovable person. She was very small, with a nut-brown face and bright, beady eyes, and she always reminded the authoress of a robin. She was an Arabic scholar, having learnt that language in order to make a study of everything to do with Arab horses. She was a passionate lover of horses, and went to bed fully equipped for riding—top boots and all—so that shemight be ready to ride in the early hours of next morning.

Mr. George Thomas: Spurs, too?

Viscountess Davidson: I do not know whether she wore spurs. The chief point I want to make about her is that when

she was ill she called in a "vet" and not a doctor. I feel that that is a great compliment to the veterinary profession.
I have mentioned the details of my Bill. So far as its principles are concerned, I would emphasise that it should go a long way to ensure that the advances which have been made, in recent years, in scientific knowledge about animal anaesthetics shall now be applied, in practice, in this country. The veterinary profession assures us that the time has now come when all painful surgical operations upon animals should be carried out under conditions which will reduce pain to the absolute minimum. It is most desirable that we should help the profession to obtain that object by bringing the relevant legislation up to date, and I hope that the House will be prepared to give this Measure a unanimous Second Reading.

11.19 a.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I beg to second the Motion.
It has been most ably moved by the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (ViscountessDavidson). This is one of a series of Measures dealing with the welfare of creatures other than ourselves. I think it speaks very well for this House that so many such Measures have been introduced by Members on both sides of the House when they have had good luck in the Ballot and so had the opportunity to introduce legislation.
We interfere with the lives of domestic animals a great deal. Some of our interference is clearly to their advantage. We give them security by removing some of the risks to which normal animals are exposed. On the other hand, we relieve them of some of the pleasures and interests that normal animals expect throughout their lives.
When we submit them to surgery it may be for their good but it is mainly in our interest. The animals do not ask us for operations. They do not understand them, and they appear to resent them, although I must say that sick dogs and cats often make very nice patients and seem to enjoy themselves as invalids. Nevertheless, the main object of operations on domestic animals is our benefit, and that being so, it behoves us to carry out operative treatment as kindly and with as little discomfort as can possibly


be managed, and that is really the object of this Bill.
Although I have carried out very many operations in my time and given not a few anaesthetics, my experience as regards creatures other than the kind to which I belong is very limited indeed. But I know that surgery in animals and surgery in man have very much in common, and I know also that they have changed very materially since the last Act dealing with this matter, the Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1919.
Great changes have taken place in the anaesthetics used both for animals and men. At that time we used mainly chloroform and ether for general anaesthesia and cocaine derivations for local anaesthesia. Now many different anaesthetics are used, and may be given by injection into the veins of animals or men—nerve blocks, spinal anaesthesia, and so on.
Also since the time of the former Act there has been another very striking difference in surgery. In 1919, there were practically no drugs which, introduced into the body of an animal or a man, would kill the germs before they killed the individual that harboured them. Now we have all sorts of drugs called antibiotics which kill germs without killing us or the animals concerned, such as penicillin, sulphanimides and aureomycin. By the use of these we are able to carry out in animals and men operations that would have been very difficult in 1919. So that the scope of surgery in both animals and men has changed very much indeed since that Animals (Anaesthetics) Act was passed.
I believe there is another change that has taken place since 1919 amongst both doctors and the veterinary surgeons. I believe that both are much more kind and sympathetic and much less ready to cause unnecessary pain.
As has already been said by the noble Lady, the Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1919, with its six Schedules, provides a list of animals, a list of operations, and saysthat in some of these there is a choice of anaesthetics, and in some cases only a general anaesthetic must be given. But things have changed a good deal and many of the operations scheduled in that Act are very rarely performed.
Moreover, there are scores of other operations that are performed almost every day by veterinary surgeons and are not even mentioned in that Act. So conditions have changed very much, and the object of this Bill is to give the veterinary surgeon much more freedom; but freedom, not licence, because this Bill is very careful to restrict as far as may be any cruelty to animals.
With the exception mentioned in the First Schedule, any operation carried out without a proper anaesthetic will, under the terms of the Bill, be deemed to be carried out without due care and humanity, and the principal Act, the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, says that if an operation is carried out without due care and humanity the person carrying it out will be guilty of cruelty. There are punishments for cruelty stated in that Act—fine or imprisonment or both.
The kernel of this very useful Bill is to be found in the First Schedule. One of the very vauable points about the Bill is that the ages given in this Schedule can be changed. In the Schedule are stated the ages below which castration can take place if given without an anaesthetic, and various animals are mentioned, but those times can be changed by Statutory Instrument, if agreed by this House.
There are two points in the First Schedule regarding excepted operations, as they are called, to which I should like to draw attention:
Any experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876
is excepted. I am quite sure that it would be the wish of hon. Members that all laboratory investigations, which are dealt with in that Act, should be fully exempted under this Bill. My only anxiety is this. I want other minor operations regularly employed in the preparation of life-saving drugs to be excepted as well. I am not quite sure that this Bill does except them. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us when he speaks.
For instance, many curative serums are prepared from animals; a valuable anti-diphtheria serum is prepared by injecting the toxin of diphtheria into horses and drawing off the blood from the veins; and this is used as anti-toxin. I do not think that can be called an experiment


in the true sense of the word, and I am sure it is the wish of all hon. Members that such acts should not be considered contrary to the spirit of the Bill.
There is another and perhaps even more important point that I want to mention. The last paragraph in the First Schedule of exempted operations reads:
Any minor operation which is normally performed by persons other than veterinary surgeons and veterinary practitioners.
I think that is too vague. The noble Lady gave examples, such as artificial insemination and the punching of an animal's ear for identification purposes. Quite rightly, she suggested that these should not be included in the Bill.
I suggest that there are others, such, for example, as cutting off the sharp teeth of sucking pigs. That is often carried out and, of course, comes under the Bill because the Bill deals with bone structures as well as sensitive tissues, and teeth could be called bone structure. I wonder whether a change might be introduced during the Committee stage so that instead of this rather vague statement we might make a list of the procedures which are normally performed by persons other than veterinary surgeons, and allow the Minister responsible under the Bill to add to this list by a Statutory Instrument.
Those are minor points which can be dealt with on the Committee stage. I strongly commend this excellent Bill to the House, and I hope that it will be given a unanimous Second Reading.

11.33 a.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: We must all compliment my noble Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) not only on introducing the Bill, but also on the lucid and persuasive way in which she has presented it to the House. She has not quite succeeded in persuading me to follow the example of the lady about whom she told us at the end of her speech, and I must confess that when my aching bones require treatment I do not intend to send for a veterinary surgeon, much as I share her admiration for that profession.
The noble Lady is doing a very good turn to animals by introducing the Bill, but she is also doing a very good turn to human beings. Many of us have long been concerned and perturbed about the

methods by which, it is reported, experiments on animals are carried out. This Bill will relieve our minds to a very great extent. It is a kind of bridge or half-way house between the vivisectionists and the anti-vivisectionists. There are those who believe that vivisection is a necessity for the animals themselves, since its results have been the means of saving many animals a great deal of suffering and of avoiding future diseases. They feel, too, that it is also a necessity for human beings, because through those experiments, much as we dislike them, many of us have been saved to a ripe old age when otherwise we might have yielded to the onward march of time much earlier.
There are those, holding the contrary view, who is completely opposed to any form of vivisection for any purpose and at any time. I have never been able to convince myself, or been convinced by their arguments, that that attitude can be justified, much though I understand and sympathise with it.
We have all been concerned, in these experiments on animals—and I share the dislike of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) of the word "experiment"—as to whether, in conducting them in the past, there has been unnecessary pain or suffering or even acute discomfort. I must tell my hon. Friend that I believe we can make amendments in Committee which will improve the Bill, but even as drafted it should assuage most of our doubts for the future. I therefore warmly support my noble Friend in her efforts to obtain an unopposed Second Reading for the Bill, which, I believe, will have the warm support of vivisectionists and anti-vivisectionists alike.
It will also comfort my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) in that it has not been promoted or inspired by any of the humane societies. I should like to digress for a moment to refer to a speech made by my hon. Friend a fortnight ago when the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill was being discussed in the House. I am referring to certain rather severe criticisms which my hon. Friend made and which, on second thoughts, he would probably like to withdraw.

Sir Herbert Williams: No.

Sir T. Moore: Unfortunately, I was not here to defend the societies which he criticised. I have been associated with most of the reputable societies for most of my life and I should therefore like to say a few words about the devoted and self-sacrificing efforts of busy men and women, in all walks of life, who voluntarily give their services to the cause in which they believe.
I hope my hon. Friend will believe me when I tell him that they are not all emotional sentimentalists or self-seekers. They are people who give their energy, their time, their thoughts and their care because they believe it is a good thing to do. In fact, far from being emotional or sentimental, we have had in this House fox hunters, masters of hounds, business men and farmers who have devoted much of their working lives, when time has been available to them, in helping this cause of the protection of animals.
My hon. Friend mentioned on that occasion that the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill, which, happily, secured a Second Reading, had not been promoted by any animal society or given any encouragement by them. I think it was rather unfair of him not to mention the International League for the Protection of Horses, because for as long as can be remembered the League has been conducting a noble campaign in defence of the horse, which culminated in the Bill a fortnight ago. Some of us will remember our old colleague, Sir George Cockerill, who is still guiding the destiny of the League. Although they were not exactly responsible for sponsoring the Bill, it might fairly be termed their godchild.
I am sure my hon. Friend will accept in good part the next point which I make. Speaking of the R.S.P.C.A., he said:
I found that the members' love of animals was exceeded only by their hatred of mankind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January. 1954; Vol. 522, c. 2073.]
There was laughter at that comment. We all know, of course, that my hon. Friend has a boyish and, at times, endearing habit of gross exaggeration. I will refrain from further comment on his speech, except to say that their hatred of mankind seems materially to have decreased since my hon. Friend left the Council.
This is an admirable Bill. Although it may not go as far as many people would like it to go, it is a step—not the first step but a further step—towards the aim which many of us have of making life more tolerable, more kindly and easier for those animals which are the victims of their own and our interests. There is, however, one criticism I would make, and that is that there is nothing, so far as I can find, in the Bill to show what happens to people who infringe the requirement of the Measure. There are no sanctions; there are no penalties.

Sir H. Williams: Yes, there are.

Sir T. Moore: Not in this Bill.

Sir H. Williams: If my hon. Friend will read Clause 2, he will find that it runs with certain other Acts mentioned in the Schedules.

Sir T. Moore: I quite appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but there is nothing exactly mentioned.
It is usual in a Bill of this nature to make clear to those who have to obey the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament what will happen to them if they refuse to obey or neglect to obey; and for that reason I think that it would have been perhaps better if the position had been made clear and decisive in the body of the Bill. However, these are Committee points which can be settled very easily, if they require settlement. I think that we all join in sending the Bill on its way with our general good wishes and congratulations to my hon. and noble Friend.

11.42 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene for a minute or two to express the view of the Government on this Bill. I listened with interest and sympathy to the exposition of the purposes and merits of the Bill given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) and I should like to congratulate her on her sucess in bringing it forward and on doing something which, I think, will commend itself to everybody as being of great value in relieving pain and suffering of animals.
We are, after all, a nation of animal lovers pre-eminently of any nation in the world, and, therefore, I think it is consistent with the general feeling that we have for animals that we should enlarge the protection that the law gives to them. The fact is that this Bill will help to make, as was said by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), a comprehensive protection for all operations, by requiring an anaesthetic generally and defining only the exceptions. In other words, it does exactly the reverse of what the 1919 Act did, which was valuable in itself. This Bill goes that much further, and I feel sure that it will commend itself to everybody.
The hon. Member for Barking specifically asked me whether the First Schedule interfered with such matters as the making of serums for anti-toxins by drawing off blood from animals. I am advised that it will not. Paragraph 1 of the First Schedule refers to the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, which applies only to experiments, and this particular kind of action is not regarded as an experiment; it is a routine matter, and, therefore, it will not be touched by this particular paragraph.
I should say one word about this Schedule. As my hon. Friend has said in introducing the Bill, great care has been taken in consultation with the veterinary profession and the farming interests to secure a proper balance in this Schedule so that this very valuable humane Measure shall not interfere with the practical interests of farming life.
I believe that in the Schedule, particularly in paragraph 6, that proper balance has been reached. Apart from the economic aspect, it would be physically impossible to apply anaesthesia in all those cases involving millions of animals a year. Therefore, I feel sure that when this Bill comes to be discussed in Committee hon. Members will recognise the practical necessity of the situation, and that a proper and reasonable balance has been struck here.
I should like to join with my other hon. Members in paying my tribute to the veterinary profession. It has developed during the last few decades into a profession of very high standing and has done work of very high value not only from the humanitarian point of

view, but from the economic point of view in strengthening the efficiency of livestock keeping generally, and this cannot be too highly praised. Their particular concern to extend the protection which this Bill gives to animals is only what we would expect in view of the very fine humanitarian feeling they have shown. I conclude by congratulating once again my hon. Friend in bringing forward this Measure, and express the hope that the House will in due course give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: There is one question which should like to ask. I was not here when the hon. Lady introduced the Bill. Will this Bill require an anaesthetic to be given in bloodless castration?

Mr. Nugent: I think that the definition in the Bill with regard to castration generally is clearly set out in the Schedule, and the limitation is not the method of performance but the age of the animal.

11.47 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: When the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) asked me to back the Bill, I readily agreed to do so, and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating her, not only on seizing the opportunity which she got in the Ballot to introduce this very useful Measure, but on the very pleasing and lucid speech which she made in introducing it.
I should like to join with her in paying tribute to the veterinary profession. I have not had veterinary treatment myself, but I feel that there are occasional excursions made into matters by my political opponents which might entitle them to such treatment. I am sure that if it were necessary for them to have such treatment, they would get excellent treatment from this profession, which has done a considerable amount of good work for agriculture in this country. Veterinary surgeons have worked most unselfishly. I know that they work quite as efficiently and unselfishly as the medical profession. It is a very real tribute to them that from their own professional bodies they have assisted in promoting this Bill.
What the Bill will do, I believe, is this. It will make legal what is the general present practice of the veterinary profession. I have great pleasure, therefore, in supporting the. Bill, and I hope that if it is necessary—I know it is difficult because the Schedule does represent a compromise—we shall have a reasonable discussion in Committee and do our best to meet the wishes of the majority, even if we cannot meet the wishes of all.

11.49 a.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: I join with my hon. Friends in the chorus of praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) on introducing this Bill. There is one small point which, I think, is important and which I should like to raise. By Clause 2 the Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1919, is repealed, except in so far as it applies to Northern Ireland. I have looked up the Act of 1919, and I find that under the Act which is being repealed Section 3 (3) deals with the provision of Orders made under the Act.
Section 3 (3) of the 1919 Act says:
The Order, when made, shall forthwith be laid before Parliament, and shall not take effect until it has so lain for thirty days before each House of Parliament, being days upon which that House has sat, and if a resolution is passed by either House before the expiration of such days declaring that the order be annulled, the order shall not take effect, but if no such resolution is passed the order shall take effect on such day after the expiration of the last day on which any such resolution might have been passed as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may appoint.
This provision, which is important to us who wish to see the power of Parliament and its control over Statutory Instruments maintained, has been left out of the Bill.
Although Clause 1 (3) provides for the making of Orders by Statutory Instrument, there is no control by Parliament over the Statutory Instruments which the Minister may make. I urge my noble Friend to reconsider this matter before the Committee stage, and I hope that today she may think fit to give an assurance of accepting, and, indeed, sponsoring, an Amendment to the Bill which will give Parliament the control over the Statutory Instruments and Orders which the Minister may make.
With those few words, I repeat my support for the Bill in principle and say how

glad we are that it has been introduced. Everybody throughout the country will be grateful to my noble Friend. I hope she will forgive my raising this one slightly controversial point and that she will be able to give the assurance for which I have asked.
Viscountess Davidson: I assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate the omission and have every intention of rectifying it during the Committee stage of the Bill.

11.53 a.m.

Sir Frederick Messer: It seems overdoing it once again to congratulate the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson), but because I have a very deep affection for animals I have changed my feelings of esteem and regard for her to feelings of affection, also. I feel, however, a little bewildered and can only hope that the Bill is one step along the road to a complete recovery of that deep humanitarian feeling that most of us claim to possess, even if some of us get a little bit muddled in the way that we exercise it.
It seems to me that, according to the Bill, if I take my grandson's pet rabbit, knowing what is wrong with it, and perform an operation, I may be breaking the law. If, however, I get a number of men and women together, with horses and dogs, I can chase a hare for miles and see it torn to pieces, without the betrayal of any of those humanitarian instincts which prompt me to support the Bill. I can have regard to the damage which is done by wild animals and I can put down diabolical gin traps, which cause torture to them— that is all right; but, somehow, I have to make it consistent with the Bill. I realise, however, that there are differences, and it is perhaps hardly appropriate when presenting a case to exaggerate too much.
There is one weakness which has already been referred to, and I should prefer to have something more specific than the wording of paragraph 7 of the First Schedule. Clause 1, it seems, is excepted in all the cases mentioned in the First Schedule including those referred to in paragraph 7, which states:
Any minor operation which is normally performed by persons other than veterinary surgeons and veterinary practitioners.

Sir T. Moore: It means, on a farm.

Sir F. Messer: I am coming to that.
Does this include a poultry farm on which a layman, not a veterinary surgeon, normally performs caponising? I notice that caponising is not mentioned in the list of exceptions in the First Schedule. Are we to take it that somebody, without any knowledge whatever of anaesthetics, can take a fowl—it sometimes happens—and hold it down with heavy weights, pull some feathers from it, cut between the ribs, perform the operation and sew up the wound, which is a normal operation? It is done by laymen, and not always by veterinary surgeons. It may be said that that exception will speedily be remedied, and in the Bill there is, of course, the opportunity to rectify such things.
Instead of the present loose wording of paragraph 7, I should prefer the actual type of minor operation which can be performed to be specified. Nobody would object to a dog, when its claws are getting too long, having them trimmed; that can easily be done. One calls to mind a large number of these quite minor operations which are not painful and which do not call for long training.
Obviously, we want to exempt things of that sort, but does the qualification "normally performed by" mean an operation that is performed in a normal way on the animal by anybody or one that is normally performed by one particular individual? I realise that this may be considered a Committee point, but if it is mentioned on Second Reading those who want the Bill to succeed will become familiar with the idea, so that acceptance of Amendments on these lines will be readily given.
I hope that when other hon. Members are successful in the Ballot, they will follow up the good example set by the noble Lady and that soon we shall have a Bill before the House which will make impossible for us to enjoy the sight of a cat jumping through a flaming hoop for the edification of an audience; that we shall have a Bill which makes it impossible for money to be made out of dogs which are trained in the most unnatural way of walking on their front legs, and that we shall get our enjoyment in a more healthy and humane way than by the spectacle of animals performing, with dignity and with consciousness

of the fact that they are spectacles. When we get that Bill, we shall go another step along the road of saving the consciences of our people.

12 noon.

Mr. Graeme Finlay: I should like to re-echo the chorus of congratulation which has been extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) for so effectively assuming the spirit of Lady Emily Lutyens whose robin-like appearance and curious night habits were so unorthodox that I was not surprised that she adopted such unusual methods of securing attention in her sicknesses.
I will not follow the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) in the fascinating subject of discussing anti-blood sports and the apparent inconsistency between our solicitude for animals today and perhaps what we do to them when we hunt them in various forms of field sports. I would say this, however, that there is a great distinction to be drawn between dealing with a domestic animal and dealing with one in the state of nature. I do not pretend to be an authority on caponising, but, normally, caponising on a farm is exempt from the anaesthetic provisions of the Schedule.
This Bill has received such uniform support from associations and authorities who know about these things that nobody would dare to challenge it without the utmost circumspection, but I feel there is one aspect of it which I must mention. The Bill is proposing to amend the 1919 Act, and in Section 3 of that Act power is given to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to alter the types of operations and experiments which should be subject to the protection of anaesthetics.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) that not only human medical treatment but veterinary science has made great advances, and it seems to be a strange thing—I looked this up to see—that between 1919 and the present time the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has not made any Order to ameliorate the condition of animals which are being dealt with by various operations when there were improved techniques so to do.
That seems to me to be a point of substance, because here we have quite clearly accepted that medical and veterinary science have made improvements, but there seems to be a lack of liaison between the doctors and veterinary surgeons on the one hand and the Ministry on the other. Why that should be it is hard to understand, because the gap between 1919 and the present day is a long period.
That leads me to think that in recent times there have been advances in regard to these Bills. There has been a certain amount of criticism because it is the annual habit of this House to promote a number of Bills about animals; but the fact of the matter is that it has left the Statute Book in the most awful mess. When one looks at the position as it was in 1948, one finds, including statutes which protect birds that about 30 Acts of Parliament were passed between 1870 and 1948. I am very glad that myhon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) is busily settling the question of the consolidation of Acts about wild birds, but the law should be in the position that people looking at it can have a reasonable chance of seeing what is there. This piecemeal legislation has extended over a long time, and it is a difficult thing for people to know what the law is.
I do not know whether the Statute Law Revision Committee will give attention to this matter. No doubt it has not the high priority that more important subjects have, but there is a lawyer's case for tidying up statute law in this connection. I should like to say this to my hon. Friend— who opened her case so admirably—about the shape which the Bill is going to take. There has been a general improvement in the methods of anaesthetism, and there has been a shift from the few operations which the anaesthetist had to do to the number which is specified in the Schedule. It may be that there will be a dispute in the course of the Committee stage as to the correct place in which a horse should be gelded.
It seems to me that there should be an elastic provision in the Bill whereby the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, after appropriate consultation with the veterinary professional bodies concerned, could alter the Schedule if need be. I

cannot forecast what alterations will be necessary because I have not the expert knowledge of these matters, but we do not want to have the Statute Book cluttered up with small amending Acts passed from time to time. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend should keep that in mind when she is considering the future of the Bill.
With those words, I resume my seat, and re-echo the general chorus of approval for this admirable Measure.

12.7 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I regret that I was not present when the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) moved the Second Reading of this Bill, but I am quite sure that she is worthy of all the congratulations which have been offered to her today. Only those who are interested in the work of the veterinary profession know the tremendous progress which has been made in operations on animals over the last few years. I feel sure that we shall make further progress until pain is almost eliminated from what are necessary operations.
The surgical operation of caponising poultry, referred to by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), is now undergoing a further experiment. Chemical caponising is being tried, and if it is successful it will avoid the physical pain mentioned in this debate. Simply a little slit is made in the skin of the bird and a small tabloid is put in. That is absorbed into the body and the bird is caponised. Whether it will have the effect that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) fears we still have to find out, but we are assured that when a bird is cooked, if any of the chemical remains in the body, it is efficiently and thoroughly destroyed.
In the castration of animals tremendous progress has been made. Years ago it was a most revolting and brutal operation, but today the operation of bloodless castration is over in a moment with the less pain than the drawing of a tooth.

Mr. Percy Wells: How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Kenyon: I have seen the operation performed on so many that I am quite capable of judging the reaction.
There is one operation here that is left out of the Bill and it is performed every year by shepherds all over the country. I am wondering what effect this Bill will have on it. I am referring to the docking of lambs. In certain parts of the country lambs have to be docked at the proper time. It is a painful, though not very painful, operation, but how we should administer an anaesthetic to 3,000 or 4,000 lambs and then dock them I just do not know. All that is done is to slit off the lamb's tail, the lamb runs away and all is finished. So far as I can see, this Bill would make that difficult.

Sir H. Williams: A minor operation.

Mr. Kenyon: I am glad that the hon. Baronet considers it a minor operation, but the lamb does not, and we should be careful not to reach a position where the farmer cannot get on with his work quickly.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) referred to the cutting of pigs' teeth. The teeth are merely broken off and, although it is painful, the pain saved to the sow is far greater than that caused to the little pigs, especially where there is a litter of savage pigs. The farmer only breaks off the teeth of the small suckler when he recognises that the mother is being caused pain. He nips off the teeth, and the pain is only felt for a moment. I do not know that we could apply an anaesthetic in that case. Certainly, there would be more screaming involved in giving the anaesthetic than in breaking off the teeth. However, these are points which we shall watch in Committee.
I am glad to be able to support the Bill and recognise the great progress which the veterinary world is making in relieving the suffering of animals.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not correct that only the tops of the teeth are cut off and that they are not broken off lower than the gum?

Mr. Kenyon: Yes, only the sharp point at the end.

12.12 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: This has been an interesting debate but I am a little perturbed because I am afraid that my noble Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson),

who made such a good speech for the Bill, will have a busier time in Committee than she anticipated as everyone has said that it is a good Bill but they want to alter parts of it.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), who based himself on having read half the speech I made a fortnight ago and practically none of this Bill. I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) urged the necessity of a comprehensive and a consolidating Bill. That was one of the things I said a fortnight ago which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr ignored.
I wanted it for two reasons. One was that we should have the law in one document and that we should discourage the money-collecting societies who exploit this House by bringing in two or three Bills every year instead of bringing in one to end cruelty because they would lose their income if cruelty came to an end. Since then I have had a variety of letters, some abusive. If the hon. Baronet would like to see the congratulatory ones, I will send them to him, but I am a little nervous because some of them are libellous about one of the institutions to which he belongs.
This is a sensible Bill because it is obvious that the general anaesthetic is dangerous in certain cases. It may be very dangerous to the animal and, if it is a localised matter and not a general one, a local anaesthetic is much better and much less cruel. As everyone knows, there have been great developments in anaesthetics.
The last time I was rendered unconscious, about six years ago, for a minor operation but one which could not be done without an anaesthetic, the doctor said to me, "You will go off shortly." I said, "When am I going off?" He replied, "You have been off, you have come back. "So there is instantaneous unconsciousness and instantaneous restoration to full consciousness with some anaesthetics. Of course there are other cases in which the local anaesthetic lasts a considerable time. There is also the general anaesthetic consisting of certain speeches which I have heard in this House—but I will not go into that.
Certain of the societies will not like the Bill, especially certain parts of it such


as the first paragraph of the Second Schedule. Some of them have existed now for nearly 100 years for the purpose of getting rid of that Act; that is why they waste such a lot of money in deceiving a lot of people. When I think of the thousands of people in this country living normal, healthy lives because they are able to inoculate themselves with insulin, and realise that this would have been quite impossible if certain people had had their way, I feel quite angry.
Hon. Members will recall that it was Sir Frederick Banting who in Toronto in 1923 tested out his theory that diabetes was due to the failure of the pancreas to regulate the sugar in the blood stream. He established that fact by experimenting with six dogs. Thereafter he used sweetbread obtained from sheep from the slaughterhouse and, by elaborate biochemical experiments, was ultimately able to insulate the particular pancreas juice in order to help people whose pancreas no longer works properly. There are tens of thousands of those people, and if insulin were to be withdrawn from them they would be dead in a few months. These evil societies are trying to destroy such people.
In regard to distemper in dogs, I remember asking a question in this House of Mr. Stanley Baldwin when he was Lord President of the Council. Those responsible for medical research had made experiments which resulted in the discovery of an inoculation to prevent distemper, and those experiments involved a few dogs. As a result millions of dogs now avoid distemper and I am also told that it helps in regard to hard pad. I have never seen a case of that, but I have heard about it. That is the kind of cruelty which is prevented.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not possible to support such useful experiments and, at the same time, to protest against any cruelty involved? Can we not have experiments without cruelty?

Sir H. Williams: Anybody who has read the 1876 Act and the annual reports will know that before any experiment is performed the premises must be licensed, the person must be licensed. Sometimes it is a restricted licence, sometimes a wider one. Every year there is available to us an account of all experiments per-

formed. The Act lays it down that if on recovery to consciousness the animal is likely to be in pain, it must be destroyed painlessly.
Most people do not know what vivisection means. They read these dreadful, wicked pamphlets, which completely mislead the community, whereas if they read the annual report presented to the Home Secretary they would find that a vast number involve no more than the pain I suffer when I am pricked whilst gathering a rose or the pain resulting from a local anaesthetic. Indeed, some are merely feeding experiments.
Would anybody suggest that we should prevent blood tests being taken so that the blood may be injected into a guinea pig or some other animal in order to establish the condition of the patient? Such experiments involve the almost painless use of animals. Yet these evil societies, as I call them, if they had their way would inflict immense pain and suffering on human beings and animals. I am glad to have this opportunity of saying, with a little more vigour, what I said a fortnight ago.
I am glad also that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) raised the point about delegated legislation. As hon. Members know, I have taken a great interest in that subject for a long time and it is advisable that this House should retain ultimate control. It does not mean that there will be a lot of Prayers, but the mere knowledge which the Minister and his Department have that the last word can lie with this House means that they will be more careful in preparing their regulations. It is not enough to consult the interested parties. They must consult the general public, and we are the representatives of the general public. The amazing thing is that the Ministry of Agriculture are to be blamed for this, because the noble Lady has told us that they gave her great help with regard to the drafting of the Bill.
In the 1919 Act, there is a lovely long Section about Parliamentary control, but now only a few words will be needed, because the Statutory Instruments Act renders such long phrasing unnecessary. I am delighted to hear from my noble Friend that she is proposing, in Committee, to insert the necessary words to retain democratic control, so that any change may be made by regulations. It gives me


great pleasure to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and I was pleased when the noble Lady asked me to be one of its sponsors.

12.21 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to join in the general congratulations which have been offered to the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) both on this Bill and on her presentation of it. I rather sympathise with the view expressed by the granddaughter of Lord Byron, which the noble Lady quoted, because I have always believed that veterinary surgeons are more skilful people than doctors, because a doctor, at any rate, asks a patient what is the matter with him, whereas the veterinary surgeon has to find out, and if he is not too skilful the result may be very painful for the veterinary surgeon.
I merely rise to support the plea made by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr.Finlay), reinforced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), that some effort should be made to put the mass of legislation relating to animals into more compendious form and thoroughly overhaul it. Of course, one of the difficulties in dealing with this matter is that this is just the type of Bill which private Members can bring in without very much trouble. The hon. Member for Croydon, East referred to certain societies, but I think that he rather lost his sense of proportion in his allusion to them. Some of the strictures he made are justified in part, but should be expressed with rather more moderation than he showed.
These societies exist to supply these Bills to hon. Members, and they have the very great advantage that they make no charge on the Treasury, and, therefore, no Money Resolution is required. I was astonished, when Private Bill legislation was reintroduced in the 1945–50 Parliament, when I was Home Secretary, to learn of the amount of time which my Under-Secretaries had to give to these Measures, because they could be so conveniently introduced without any trouble with regard to finance. We had a variety of Measures dealing with limited classes of animals, like the Pet Shops Bill and similar Measures. The result was that these Measures went through with fairly

general approval in the House, so that there is now a mass of legislation—I hesitate to give the number of Acts reported to me—existing on this matter, which must make the life of people who are concerned, in their ordinary livelihood, with matters that may arise under these Acts rather more difficult.
I would urge, therefore, that the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture and any other Department that may be concerned, should see whether it is not possible to have a Departmental overhaul of all these Measures, and make a suggestion whereby the whole matter can be put into a consolidating Bill. That would enable people, who may, quite inadvertently, commit offences at the present time over this very wide range, to have some opportunity of knowing exactly where they stand.
As far as this Bill is concerned, I support it, but I do so with the reservation that, in the very near future, an effort should be made to get all this legislation into one Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Peter Remnant: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Judging by past experience, I should declare my interest, if it is an interest, to the extent that I own one dog, three pigs and some poultry, though some of my critical friends may be inclined to say that on occasions the dog has the custody of the hon. Member for Wokingham.
This Bill, which has been alive for some time, owes a debt of gratitude to a number of hon. and right hon. Members of this House. It began, I believe, in the fertile brain of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who, but for a most pressing engagement, and to his regret, would have been here today to give it his strong support. It was introduced about a year


ago by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), and I must pay tribute to what I believe to be the large amount of work done on it by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and his officials.
As on all these matters, I have had a large amount of correspondence, some ofit from as far away as Alberta, showing interest in the subject, but it is not the number of letters that I have received which impresses me so much as the fact that every single one of them has been in favour of the Bill, or even of some stronger steps than those proposed in the Bill itself. Although some may wish to change the methods, to make them stronger or even slightly weaker, these are points which can be argued in Committee, and I therefore hope the proposals in the Bill will be given the support of the House today.
I do not propose to spend any time on the aspects of cruelty as such. I think it is quite unnecessary to be sentimental about this matter, because cruelty is abhorred and hated by all decent persons and I think we can start by discussing whether it is right or wrong to adopt the measures proposed in this Bill in order to correct it. I do not dissent from the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in wanting a comprehensive Bill to deal with the whole matter, but I do say that, until such time as such a Bill can be introduced, this House has a moral duty anyway to see that such cruelty as does exist shall toe stopped, so far as it is possible to do so.
The question is whether the magistrates have sufficient powers not only to check cruelty, but to stop it in those extreme cases in which there are persistent offenders. I take it that my duty is to show to the satisfaction of the House that there is sufficient persistent cruelty, and that the measures that I am proposing are the right and correct way to deal with it adequately. To me, at any rate, while it may be said that the number of cases of cruelty is less than it was 10, 20 or even 30 years ago, that does not satisfy me so long as cruelty,

and particularly persistent cruelty, is still going on.
Perhaps here I might emphasise that the Bill, in my view, makes no attempt whatever to interfere with the discretion of the magistrates. It seeks only to give them increased powers to use if they so decide and think proper. The Bill seeks to give magistrates power to bar any person on second conviction or afterwards from keeping any animal or any type of animal for such period as they think fit. It also seeks to increase the maximum fine from £25 to £50, the £25 having remained unaltered since the original Act of 1911.
I would again stress that it is not the single or small case of cruelty that I have in mind in the Bill; it is the persistent offender. As far as I can see, no power exists at present to stop the persistent offender from continuing. It is true that existing provisions give magistrates power to take away and dispose of the animal which has been the subject of cruelty, but they do nothing whatever to stop the individual going round the corner and buying another animal of the same type and starting his cruelty all over again.
The cases which I shall cite to justify the Bill—I must mention a few later—are authentic, and more can be instanced if anyone so desires. They do not include police cases, for such records are not, readily at any rate, available to the ordinary person. The existing law lies in the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, amended by the 1912 Act so far as imprisonment is concerned, and thus the provision is for a maximum penalty of £25 and/or three months' imprisonment, and also the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act, 1933, which, it should be noted, gives the court power to order a convicted person to be disqualified from keeping a dog or holding a dog licence on first conviction.
It may be argued that the fact that a licence is required to keep a dog affords some protection against a convicted person continuing his offence. I do not think that that is a very strong argument. Is it really suggested that there is any tie-up between the taking out of a licence and the individual? If I happen to be in Liverpool, there is nothing to stop me taking out a licence there in order to


keep a dog in Oxfordshire. Is it really suggested that the licence will be followed through by the Post Office, the police and the Home Office? I should much prefer to rely on the local police and the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors to see whether a convicted person was contravening an order of the courts.
An interesting point in relation to the Act relating to dogs is that as soon as the ban became law the magistrates began to use the power. I would also add that the record for 1953 shows that 120 persons were disqualified for various periods from keeping a dog, and 33 of them were disqualified for life. Those are authentic cases, and they can be proved if need be. Is there any reason to suggest that magistrates who appear to like that power would not use it if it were extended to other animals?
In the Bill I am seeking disqualification in the case of other animals only on or after second conviction, because the animals in respect of which there may be cruelty are, by their very nature, likely to be the means of livelihood of the individual, such as cattle, sheep, pigs, and so on, and I think it is fair to provide an opportunity for the individual offender to be given a sharp reminder if the first offence is a bad case rather than to disqualify him.
The cases which I am about to mention are mostly of recent date. There was the case of a mill owner who was convicted eight times between 1948 and 1952, and up to 550 animals were involved in a single charge. He was fined the maximum six times. It did not seem to have much effect in stopping the cruelty. There was a farmer who was convicted 17 times, the last three convictions being in 1948, 1950 and 1951, and the cases involved pigs and sheep. In 1948, he was fined £25; in 1950, he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment; and, in 1951, he was put on probation for two years provided that he entered an old people's home.
Another farmer was convicted eight times between 1924 and 1937. He was fined the maximum and also sentenced to three months' imprisonment on a number of occasions. Another farmer convicted 11 times between 1935 and 1953 was fined the maximum and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
After hearing those few cases, surely it cannot be argued that cruelty and persistent cruelty do not still continue.

Mr. Percy Wells: Has the hon. Gentleman a record of any convictions of pet shop proprietors?

Mr. Remnant: I have none here. I consider that adequate measures were taken in recent legislation to deal with pet shop proprietors, and I have not included such convictions in my notes.
Now we come to the question whether the two proposed Measures are adequate and correct, and I hope right and hon. Gentlemen will agree with me that they are certainly deserving of acceptance in an attempt to overcome the difficulty.
It is interesting to note that, whereas we in this country are often inclined to say that we are ahead of the rest of the world in matters relating to dumb animals, South Australia, in 1949, provided the same power for banning as is contained in the Bill, and in 1952 Queensland passed similar legislation, making the maximum fine £100. We shall have to argue in Committee whether £50 is the right maximum or not. My information is that South Australia is using the power to ban, and I have little doubt that when records are available we shall find that Queensland is also using its newfound power.
This Bill makes the same provisions. I do not take into consideration the value of the pound. I am content to rely on what I believe to be the case, that the present maximum fine has been proved to be insufficient as a deterrent today by the cases which I have mentioned and others which could be cited. That is the reason I want the maximum fine increased, and, with the additional power of disqualification given to the magistrates, I hope and believe that we shall have done much to curb and to stop the persistent offender.
I seek only to give the magistrates that greater choice. I believe that this Bill will achieve that, and that there is ample and full justification for the two additional powers to be given to the magistrates. I therefore commend the Bill to the House and hope it will receive a Second Reading.

12.41 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) has made a strong and moving case for the Bill. It is perhaps a sad commentary on our times that such a Bill is necessary but a careful study of the records of convictions in previous years leads one to two conclusions. First, that there has been no real diminution in the number of cases of cruelty to animals, certainly since 1945. The figures show no decrease and even the pattern of cruelty has not changed over much. Second, that there are persistent offenders who are deterred neither by the existing maximum fine nor by terms of imprisonment.
What is needed to cope with this situation is a greater deterrent where there is a chance of reformation and power to be given to the courts to deprive persons convicted of cruelty of the custody of any animals in cases where the court is clearly of opinion that such persons are unfit to have animals in their possession. These two objectives are precisely which this Bill seeks to achieve.
I wish to emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friend that this Bill does not seek to force magistrates to impose greater penalties. It merely gives them greater powers to deal more effectively with the worst cases. It may well be, of course, that the existing penalties provided by law are sufficient to deal with the first offender who is guilty of no more than stupidity, or of a sudden act of savagery which may not be repeated, or of neglect due to circumstances with some mitigating feature.
However, I can think of innumerable cases where a person has been prosecuted many times for cruelty or neglect to animals and may have been fined four, five or six times the maximum of £25. In such circumstances it is clear that the fine is inadequate. The fact is that where the persistent offender is concerned the existing law—except in the case of dogs—is woefully inadequate.
My hon. Friend referred to the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act, 1933, under which a person convicted of cruelty to a dog can be deprived by the courts of keeping a dog, either for life or for such a period as the court
may deem fit. So far as I can discover, the courts have not been slow to use that power since the Act was passed in 1933. But I cannot understand why other dumb animals cannot be accorded the same protection.
Like many hon. Members, I have had a whole series of animals in my care, and in the care of members of my family, over the course of years. Is a cat or a horse less sensitive to pain and feeling than adog? Of course not. One has only to state it in order to see how ridiculous is such a contention. I remember someone saying some years ago that we in this country are not governed by logic, but by Acts of Parliament, and I agree with hon. Members this morning who observed what a pity it is that we have to deal with this question of animal protection step by step, and that we cannot have one consolidating Measure covering the whole field.
As the law now stands, the courts are powerless to deprive a person of the custody of animals other than dogs. There have been cases where people have been deprived by the courts of the custody of dogs, but subsequently have been convicted of cruelty to other animals. Take the case of a woman who, in 1946, was convicted and fined for omitting to provide proper care and attention to no fewer than six dogs.
The magistrates considered it a pretty bad case. They fined her and disqualified her for life from keeping dogs. But six years later the same woman was brought before the court and convicted of omitting to provide proper care and attention this time to four horses. She was fined again, and could have been sent to prison. But the case need never have arisen at all had the magistrates had power six years earlier to deprive her of the custody of any animal.
My hon. Friend has cited a number of cases and I do not wish to weary the House by referring to many more. Unhappily no one has a monopoly of cruelty. But there is one case which was brought to my attention recently, a truly shocking case, which illustrates the point more forcibly than any other. On 13th January of this year the R.S.P.C.A. prosecuted a dealer for permitting a cow to travel in an unfit condition. He was fined £15 and ordered to pay £11 16s. costs.
On the face of it that does not sound a terribly serious offence and might possibly be attributed to neglect or ignorance. But this man was 78 years of age. He had had 17 previous convictions, going back over a period of 57 years. He was first convicted of cruelty to a horse as long ago as June, 1897. Nobody can measure the toll of animal suffering which that man has caused throughout his life.
I hope we shall not hear the argument—I do not think for one moment that we shall—that were such an unfeeling wretch deprived by the courts of the custody of any animal—as would be the case if this Bill becomes law—his livelihood would be taken away. As the law now stands, a farmer may be deprived of his farm for bad husbandry. I will not argue whether that is a good or a bad thing. It is one of the great arguments of our time— public need versus private rights and I will not enter into that. But is the proper use of the land rated higher in our scale of values than the proper care of living creatures? I should have thought not. Nobody in his senses would say "Aye" to that. In any event, this is the sort of matter which can be left to the good sense of the magistrates themselves.
It may be asked why the Bill does not seek to increase the maximum prison sentence of three months. My hon. Friend and I considered this question most carefully. We found from the records of convictions that magistrates are not generally disposed to impose prison sentences even in bad cases, though they possess power to do so under existing legislation. From examination of the records of the R.S.P.C.A. we found that, in November, 85 persons were convicted, 84 were fined and one went to prison. In December, 77 persons were convicted, 74 were fined and three went to prison. Last month 71 were convicted, 70 were fined and one went to prison.
One must say at once that a high proportion of these cases would be first offences, but I do not want hon. Members to assume that they were all trivial matters which did not warrant heavier penalties. I will not sicken the House with the details, but they included cases of animals having been battered to death, burned alive and left to die in agony.
The truth is that magistrates are well aware that in the worst cases, in which they have to deal with a persistent offender who has been before them many times, neither imprisonment nor a fine is a sufficient deterrent.
There is the case of a dealer who has paid a total of over £170 in fines and costs and been to prison more than once. Of him the R.S.P.C.A. inspector said:
This man loses pounds buying stock and neglecting them, but does not bother. He likes prison life and during the last three weeks there he had an old-standing rupture cured. During his previous three months in prison they cured his rheumatism, and the magistrates would have welcomed powers to disqualify him from keeping any living thing again.
There are similar instances well known to those who have experience of the courts.
There was a case some time ago of an elderly man who pleaded guilty to a charge of gross neglect of a number of farm animals. The R.S.P.C.A. inspector reports:
This man appeared pleased to go off to prison. He asked for his glasses as he would be doing a lot of reading. He told me he always had the front seat at the prison chapel as he was deaf and was usually allowed to stay in bed until 10 a.m. and could please himself what he did. He appeared in court dressed like a tramp, but he pays £1,000 yearly in Income Tax.

Mr. P. Wells: What is the name of the prison?

Mr. Braine: I cannot say, but what is the use of sending a man like that to prison? What is the use of fining him? A fine is no deterrent.
Surely attention should be drawn to the fact that as the law now stands that man cannot be deprived of the custody of animals, and as soon as he is released from prison he can start his activities again. I emphasise that this is a Bill to protect animals rather than to punish brutes. For that reason, we thought that there was little purpose in seeking to increase the prison sentence, though there is plenty of evidence that public opinion would welcome an increase in penalties.
As the Bill provides for a heavier fine and for powers to be given to the courts to disqualify persons from having the custody of animals, it will go a long way toward reducing the terrible toll of


animal suffering which still disgraces this land of ours, and so I commend the Bill to the House.

12.55 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: First, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) on the manner in which they have introduced this Measure. The hon. Member for Billericay spoke of the piecemeal nature of this type of legislation. The difficulty is that this is the only field in which a private Member can move. Once we begin to deal with comprehensive Measures, the Government of the day step in and say, "We reserve all major Bills to ourselves and, of course, we leave the piecemeal Bills to the private Member." Therefore, the field in which the Private Member works is exceedingly small.
Since I have been in this House I have been inspired by the laudable ambition to introduce a perfect Bill. I have had two shots at it, but I fear that in both cases I have not yet succeeded. When I read the first two Clauses of this Measure I at once said to myself, "I wish I had had the foresight to conceive both Clauses. I should certainly have married them with my Bill." That would have made the Measure which I recently introduced a much clearer conception of the ideal Bill. Of course, the Government's good will must be enlisted. If the Government were sympathetic towards the two Clauses I have mentioned and sought to make an Amendment in my Bill in Standing Committee, I should be happy to accept the suggestion.
The hon. Member for Billericay has explained why the machine works in a way he indicated. Magistrates do not even exercise the powers which they already possess. That is because they are aware of local circumstances which are not common knowledge to people who live outside the district. Though punishment may not appear to be the right kind to those who do not know the circumstances, when one understands them one can appreciate how difficult it is for the magistrate to exercise the right kind of justice. In this connection, I am all for making the punishment fit the crime. I sincerely hope that the purpose of the Bill will be realised very soon.

12.59 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I join in the congratulations which are due to my hon. Friends the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and Billericay (Mr. Braine) on introducing this Measure. There is a growing consciousness among hon. Members of the cruelty that is shown to animals and the need for a reform in our legislation on the subject. Indeed, it seems that on both sides of the House we are anxious to help. The unanimity which has been reached on the treatment of animals is thrown into sharp relief by the disagreement which sometimes exists on the treatment of humans.
We have already had one Bill this morning, proposed by the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson), and I particularly welcome this Bill because I have vivid memories of cruelty to animals when I was a very much younger man. In one particular case I followed, and reported, the driver of a horse-drawn railway van who was beating the animal absolutely unmercifully with a stick. Under this Bill, the magistrates could ensure that such a man should no longer have custody of an animal.
The hon. Member for Billericay has cited examples of bestial cruelty to animals. In the past, magistrates have had certain powers, but not the power to deny to the man persistently cruel to farm animals the right to own them. If, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is right and proper that the fanning community, in the interests of the nation, should have the right to say that a man growing crops should be evicted from his farm and so denied his livelihood, I believe that it is much more important, in common humanity, that a man persistently cruel to animals should have his living denied if otherwise it is to be obtained at the expense of the well-being of animals. I hope that this Bill will make that possible in future.
Although this Bill deals with pets and farm animals, I think that most of us would like to see an extension of its provisions to the treatment of wild animals. I know that there are many like myself who will never be satisfied until the use of the abominable gin trap is completely forbidden. That its use should be allowed is one of the most foul


blots on our treatment of animals. I hope steps will be taken to speed up the legislation that will abolish its use altogether.
Since being in this House I have come constantly into closer touch with the veterinary profession, and know how much its members welcome the passage of such Bills as this. Indeed, I have found that the "vets," above all others, have done very much to promote the understanding of ordinary people in their treatment of domestic animals, and, in particular, pets. I feel that practically all of them are great animal lovers themselves.
I recently had an example of their efficiency and kindness. I have a particularly nervous dog and when he had to have an operation we were all rather fearful as to the way he would take it, but he most willingly returned to the veterinary surgeon's for treatment after the initial operation. The wording of his bill was an indication, I think, of the way in which the animal was treated. There was not the terse request for two guineas, such as one receives from a doctor but, "To the removal of growth from Bimbo's ear— two guineas." That he remembered the dog's name and put it on the bill is a slight indication of the attitude of "vets" towards the animals they treat. I have no doubt, too, that among good farmers there is considerable enlightenment in regard to the benefits they derive from proper treatment of farm animals, and that farmers will welcome this Bill.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary will assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham that it will receive the support of the Ministry. I do not doubt that any amendments that may be put forward in Committee will strengthen its object, which is to remove what I believe to be a blot on our present treatment of animals, and that those people found to be persistent in their cruelty to animals under their care shall no longer have the right to keep them.

1.6 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton): I am happy to associate myself with the hon. Members who have already spoken, because I think that a very strong case has been made for the passage of the Bill into law. Another reason I am glad to have an opportunity to take

part in the discussion is that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), who introduced the Bill, happens to be—for better or worse—my Parliamentary representative. If I may say so without offence, this is probably the first occasion when remarks which he has addressed to the House have been completely acceptable to me. It is, therefore a particular pleasure to be associated to some extent with him in asking the House to agree to this Measure.
The hon. Gentleman took care, of course, to steer clear of any discussion about the diminishing value of the £. That is a factor to be taken into account in assessing whether the present scale of fines generally is now adequate. I hesitate to suggest as a comprehensive measure that the scale of fines should be in any way tied to the Interim Index of Retail Prices; but occasions do arise, as in this instance, when the House has to consider whether the maximum financial penalty is really adequate in all circumstances.
It has been pointed out that the Bill does not interfere with the maximum sentences of imprisonment which can be imposed. Time is still, apparently, a more or less stable factor. The length of a month now is about as long as it was when the maximum penalty of three months was imposed in cases of cruelty.
It has always been rather curious that a higher degree of protection should be afforded to dogs than is extended to other dumb animals. I do not quite know the explanation, unless it is that dogs are regarded as the aristocracy of the animal world or that the Government and the Treasury have a financial interest in them as the only animals which have to be licensed. That may possibly explain why dogs have hitherto enjoyed a privileged position.
As the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) pointed out, cats and other animals are entitled to the same degree of protection. I happen to be the owner of three cats. I never seem to have fewer than three; as soon as one dies of old age another mysteriously appears from somewhere.

Mr. Ede: Reincarnation.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As is well known, cats have a much greater contempt for human beings than any other animal, and that may be another reason for the low legislative status that they now enjoy.
Although the Bill does not cover the whole subject—it does not deal with wild animals, as the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) pointed out, and it does not abolish the gin trap, which many of us would like to see completely extinguished—it goes some way along the road which most of us want to travel. Everything depends on the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He is the man whom we have to convince. We have been convinced, for a long time, of the need for something like this. If the Joint Under-Secretary is in one of his better moods today, I hope that he will be able to say that the Government will provide the Bill with all the facilities which are necessary to allow it to reach the Statute Book as quickly as possible.

1.11 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) on his success in the Ballot, and on the way in which he has presented the Bill. He has picked up the mantle from two other of my hon. Friends—the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) and the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris)—who were unsuccessful with similar Bills last Session. The offence of cruelty to animals is properly regarded with detestation, and it is right that hon. Members should wish to be assured that the penalties available to the courts are both adequate and appropriate for their purpose.
In the debate on the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Bill, which has just received a Second Reading, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred to the great variety of Measures dealing with cruelty to animals, and suggested that the time had arrived when consolidation should be considered. I cannot give him a direct answer to that, but I can assure him that a plea which comes from such a source will certainly receive the consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend.
The Bill seeks to do two things. It seeks, first, to give the courts power to disqualify a person who has been twice convicted under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and, second, to increase from £25 to £50 the maximum penalty which may be inflicted for the offence of cruelty to animals. It does not seek to increase the maximum prison sentence for that offence, which is three months. These proposals must be considered in the light of the facts, which, in this case, are provided by statistics, and I must, therefore, trouble the House, very briefly, with some relevant figures.
The number of prosecutions for the offence of cruelty to animals during the 1920s averaged about 6,000 a year. During the 1930s the average fell to 3,000 a year, and since the war it has been around 1,000.

Mr. Braine: Cannot my hon. Friend relate those figures to the very sharp decline in the horse population in the'20s and'30s?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not wish to relate the figures to any particular factor. I quite agree that many factors have to be taken into account, but, broadly speaking, there has been a considerable fall in the number of prosecutions for this offence.
To be a little more particular, between 1945 and 1949 convictions stood at around 750 a year. The number was 20 or 30 on either side of that figure. Since 1949 there has been a slight rise. In 1952—the last year for which I have complete figures—the total was just under 900, but I am advised that no real deductions can be drawn from the increase, partly for the kind of reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) has indicated, and partly because the rise is small in relation to what is a fairly small figure.
The rise in the number of prosecutions has not been remarkable. In 1951 there were 1,021 prosecutions, and in 1952 there were 1,023, so that no great inference can be drawn from those figures. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the courts have found the existing penalties inadequate. It is right that I should tell the House that when it is coming to a conclusion on this proposal.

Mr. Remnant: Does my hon. Friend mean that he has had no representations from the magistrates to suggest that the powers are inadequate? The fact remains that individual offenders have been given the maximum fine and the maximum imprisonment a number of times without their ceasing to be cruel to animals.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not saying that there are not cases of the kind which my hon. Friend has mentioned, but the broad picture is that the magistrates have not found the penalties inadequate. In fact, since 1945 only just over 20 offenders have been sent to prison, on an average, each year.
The Bill increases only the monetary penalty which may be imposed: that is to say, the punishment appropriate, not for the grave cases which have been mentioned, but for what may be called the general run of cases—I do not like to use such a phrase in this context, but I think the House will see what I mean—those cases which are likely to be dealt with by the imposition of a fine. I cannot say that this increase is essential. On the other hand, I can advise the House that a maximum of £50 would not be out of relation to other offences of the same kind.
For the same offence in Scotland, I understand that the limit is already £50, so in that respect this Bill would tend towards a more uniform law on this matter, and there may be merit in it from that point of view. If the House thinks fit to increase the maximum fine to £50, the Government certainly have no objection to that part of the Bill.
The disqualification provisions contained in Clause 1are not without precedent. The Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act, 1933, has been mentioned by several Members. I have no official statistics which would help the House, but I understand from the R.S.P.C.A. that in 1951 that Act was used in 139 cases, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has said that in 1953 it was used in 120 cases, so the House can see the kind of use that has been made of it.
Again, I have no official statistics of the number of cases where a person has been convicted more than once of cruelty to animals generally, but I am told that, so far as the R.S.P.C.A. knows, there

have been 34 such cases since 1935. No doubt, there are others that have not come to the Society's notice. There is the case that has been mentioned of a person who had 17 convictions; in 17 other cases there were from three to eight convictions; and in 16 cases two convictions. That is the size of the problem we are confronting now.
The enforcement of a general power to disqualify will necessarily be rather more difficult than in the case of dogs because dogs are licensed and other animals are not, but I think that point can quite properly be considered in Committee. There is certainly no objection to the proposal in principle, and if the House sees fit to give the Bill a Second Reading we shall do our best to make it a workable Bill.

1.21 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to join in the congratulations extended to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) on introducing this Bill and on the manner in which he presented it to us. We can express gratification at the view that has been taken of the Bill by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. There is only one point I want to mention that has not been touched on so far. Clause 1 (2) enables an appeal to be taken to quarter sessions when an order is made and the defendant against whom it is made thinks that justice has not been done. That is to be welcomed because it is one of the peculiar things that orders similar to this cannot be the subject of an appeal unless there is special provision in the statute.
However, I should have liked to have seen a further discretion vested in the justices by which they might reconsider an order after the lapse of a certain amount of time if the defendant who had been placed under the order should have shown signs of reformation. Hon. Members will know that if a man is disqualified from driving a vehicle and his licence is suspended he can, after six months, apply to the magistrates who made the order of suspension to have his licence restored. I do not think we want to say, in dealing with cases of this kind, that any person is incapable of reform.
I admit that I should want a good deal convincing were I sitting on a bench


on the sort of case mentioned, of the gentleman who used convictions under this type of Measure as an opportunity for getting free medical attention from the prison service. I suppose that what he really objects to is having to pay 1s. for his prescription when he takes it to the chemist outside prison, for to my knowledge no charge is made for a prescription given inside prison. Of course, a man who pays £1,000 a year in Income Tax is apt to be very economical in small matters, and this is one of the ways in which that is shown.
I suggest to the hon. Member that the case I have put to him is one well worthy of consideration in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) said that he believed in making the punishment fit the crime. It seems to me that this Bill does the far more desirable thing of making the punishment fit the criminal where the person is shown to be one temperamentally incapable of looking after animals. A great many of the cases that arise do arise more from ignorance and fecklessness than from the deliberate determination to be cruel. In such cases the proper steps can be taken to make a repetition of the offence impossible if the order that is made is observed.
I welcome the Bill. I hope it may have a speedy transition to the Statute Book, and I hope that the few suggestions I have made, which, I assure the hon. Member, I have made in a constructive spirit, will receive his consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — CORONERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a relatively short Measure and one that I hope will commend itself to hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. The Explanatory Memorandum adequately and concisely explains its purpose. The Bill will enable
the Secretary of State to prescribe the fees and allowances payable to witnesses at coroners' inquests and to medical practitioners who make post-mortem examinations for coroners.
At the present time, there is something of an anachronism in the matter of these fees, for they have not been amended in any way since 1926, and the law in many important respects, in this connection, dates from as long ago as 1887. The amount of the fee payable under existing statutes by a coroner to a medical practitioner who makes a post-mortem examination of the body of a deceased person by the direction or at the request of a coroner, or who attends an inquest in obedience to the summons of a coroner, is prescribed by Section 23 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926. To demonstrate the inadequacy of the provisions of that Section it may be helpful if I mention the sums it sets down. Section 23 prescribes the fees payable thus:

"(a) for attending to give evidence at any inquest whereat no post-mortem examination has been made by the practitioner, one-and-a-half guineas for each day on which he is required to attend; and 
(b) for making a post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased and reporting the result thereof to the coroner without attending to give evidence at an inquest, two guineas; and 
(c) for making a post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased (including the making of a report, if any, of the result thereof to the coroner) and for attending to give evidence at an inquest on the body, three guineas for the first day and one-and-a-half guineas for each subsequent day on which the practitioner is required to attend." 
Those sums were related to monetary values and the cost of living as they existed in 1926—more than 27 years ago.
They are totally unrelated to current financial circumstances.
Not only are the fees in themselves inadequate, but they bear a rather unfavourable relation to increases in the scale of fees that has been granted for other work of a similar character during the post-war years. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when he was Home Secretary, introduced, in 1948, the Witnesses Allowances Regulations, which increased very considerably the sums that may be paid to professional witnesses and others who attend courts, other than coroners' courts. The coroners' courts were not mentioned in those Regulations. It is, therefore, equitable that the coroners' courts should be brought into line, in the fees payable to witnesses, with the fees and allowances paid for similar work although in a different connection.
The Bill repeals Section 23 of the 1926 Act and, instead of stipulating in the main statute what are the fees and allowances to be paid for witnesses and others attending a coroners' inquest, it places the power in the hands of the Secretary of State to prescribe by Statutory Instrument, from time to time, such fees as he considers may be desirable and in accord with the then current circumstances, cost of living and monetary values.
In referring to the history and the background of these matters, I might add that under Section 22 (1, b) of the Coroners(Amendment) Act, 1926, a coroner is empowered to ask a medical practitioner or any person whom he considers to possess special qualifications to make what is called
a special examination by way of analysis, test or otherwise of such parts or contents of the body or such other substances or things as ought in the opinion of the coroner to be submitted to analyses, tests, or other special examination with a view to ascertaining how the deceased came by his death;".
The fees which may be paid for these "special examinations" are at present prescribed by a schedule of fees, allowances and disbursements made by the local authority under Section 25 of the Coroners Act, 1887. Here is a point which I consider of very great importance: special examinations will, of course, vary in type very considerably. Perhaps I may quote examples drawn from quite recent circumstances arising

from coroners' inquests—two extreme cases—to demonstrate what I have in mind.
A person traveling in a motorcar is involved in a serious accident which results in the death of the driver or a passenger within a matter of perhaps a few minutes of the accident occurring. It is relatively easy for a doctor to carry out an examination in those circumstances. No very great costs would be involved. No very special costs would be involved at the coroner's inquest or any other examination which might follow.
On the other hand, and at the other extreme, one might think of the case of an exhumation— not by any means a hypothetical case—which might be carried out in accord with the coroner's direction. In those circumstances, the examination might be of a very difficult character. It might occupy a great length of time. Of course, in addition, it might call for the services of a highly qualified specialist.
I quote those two extreme cases because they clearly demonstrate how the costs of a professional person engaged in such examinations can vary very considerably, in themselves. The local authority generally prescribes a maximum fee in such circumstances, but it can be exceeded at the discretion of the county treasurer or the chairman of the finance committee of the local authority referred to in the statute of 1926.
It is now thought, in all the circumstances, that it is most convenient that the fees for special examinations shall continue to be fixed by the local authorities, and this Measure does not propose any change in principle in that important regard, but that the Secretary of State may, if he so desires, prescribe a uniform scale by rules— and that, of course, is by delegated legislation. The proviso to Clause 1 (1) accordingly states that the provisions of the subsection shall not affect in any way the fees payable in respect of one of these special examinations to which I have referred.
The fees and allowances payable to witnesses in coroners' courts—witnesses other than professional witnesses—are at present prescribed by schedules made by the local authorities under Section 25 of the 1887 Act as extended by Section 29 (1) of the Coroners (Amendment) Act,


1926. Those schedules vary a good deal between different local authority areas and in some areas are considered to be very inadequate. It is desirable that these fees and allowances should be standardised, like those payable to witnesses in criminal courts which were standardised under Regulations made by the right hon. Member for South Shields in 1948, during the period of his office as Home Secretary.
I might mention, in addition, that Section 29 (2, b) of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, gives the Home Secretary power to prescribe a new schedule in any area in which he thinks that the fees prescribed by the existing schedule are inadequate, but, in fact, the use of this power on a wide scale would tend to be cumbersome and over a period of many years has never been exercised. This Bill therefore gives power to the Home Secretary to prescribe uniform fees and allowances for ordinary witnesses, by rule, or Statutory Instrument.
The provisions of the Bill— and it is important that I should mention this—have been discussed in close detail with the British Medical Association, who, of course, are intimately concerned with the proposals. Hon. Members will note that I have made many references to local authorities, and I might add that these provisions have also been discussed with the local authority associations and with the Coroners' Society. All these important bodies have given their unequivocal support to the proposals within this Measure. I therefore hope that they may commend themselves to the House without undue difference of opinion.
If the Bill passes into law, the Home Secretary will have power to make such regulations as he deems necessary from time to time to prescribe scales of fees in connection with witnesses, and it might, therefore, be assumed that the Home Secretary would consult each of these bodies as to the adequacy or otherwise of the proposals.
The Bill does not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland.
I have deliberately compressed my remarks into a few moments, and I have no hesitation in saying that that is a Parlia-

mentary manoeuvre to enable the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) to have further time for the Second Reading of his Bill dealing with football pools.

Mr. M. Follick: We are very grateful to the hon. Member.

Mr. Nabarro: I hope that this Bill will have the unanimous support of the House, as, indeed, it has the unanimous support of professional opinion in the country, as far as I have been able to ascertain it.

1.39 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton): The Bill will introduce a desirable measure of uniformity in what at present is a rather scattered and disjointed scale of fees. To that extent it must commend itself to all hon. Members.
It is further evidence of the diminishing monetary values, to which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred—a diminution which has been going on even since the present Government came into power. But that introduces another aspect which perhaps it would be inappropriate to discuss now. I therefore wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for Kidderminster in suggesting that the Bill be given a unanimous and unopposed Second Reading.

1.40 p.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I should like to speak for a very few minutes in support of the Bill. First, in accordance with the usual custom of the House, I must declare a personal interest or, at least, a personal potential interest by reason of my being a registered medical practitioner. I am not engaged in practice at the present time, but if I were to return to practice when this Bill becomes law, and if I were called upon by a coroner to perform a post-mortem examination and attend at the inquest, I should benefit by the provisions contained in this Bill.
I have performed many scores of post-mortem examinations and I have given medical evidence on numerous occasions in coroners' courts. I need hardly inform the House that post-mortem examinations are unpleasant work; indeed, frequently they are extremely unpleasant


work. In order that a doctor shall be able to perform this necessary duty he needs to have a considerable knowledge of anatomy, pathology and forensic medicine. He requires skill and he must be alert the whole time, keen and careful in his observations. On him falls a heavy responsibility, and he must give an accurate, careful and easily understandable report to the coroner and, possibly, to a jury at the coroner's inquest.
Sometimes when one is performing a post-mortem examination the cause of death is easily found, and the inquest may be little more than a mere formality. On those occasions the fee that is paid to the medical practitioner is comparatively easily earned. But there are other times when a post-mortem examination takes many hours; when the compilation of the report for the coroner occupies a long time, and when the inquest may take as long as half a day. On those occasions, the present scale of fees is, in my opinion, grossly inadequate. Taking an average, I would say that the present fees are insufficient for this work and the heavy responsibility that goes with it.
On 15th April, 1953, I received a letter from a Secretary of the British Medical Association telling me of the concern that was felt by the Association regarding these fees. I was informed that the Association had sent a letter to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office in July, 1952, and that a reply had been received which stated:
I am directed by the Secretary of State to refer to your letter of 23rd July about the fees payable to medical witnesses under Section 23 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, and to say that while he sympathises with the suggestions that the existing scale should be improved, he is not yet in a position to say when it would be possible to introduce the necessary amending legislation.

Mr. Nabarro: What date was that?

Dr. Broughton: This is a copy of the letter sent in reply to one from the British Medical Association, dated 23rd July, 1952.
In December of that same year, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) put down a Question for written answer to the Home Secretary, asking whether he would review the fee paid under the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, to pathologists in respect of

post-mortem examinations, in view of its inadequacy, having regard to present conditions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
Legislation would be necessary to increase the fees which may be paid to medical practitioners under Section 23 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, for making post-mortem examinations, and I regret that I cannot say how soon it will be possible to introduce legislation for this purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 47.]
I submit that there is abundant evidence to show that the Government admit that the medical profession has suffered an injustice and yet, I suggest with disgraceful neglect of their duties, the Government had not brought forward the Bill themselves The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is now undertaking the responsibility and duties of the Government, because the Government would not find time to bring in this Bill themselves.
Since the tragedy of the last General Election, the Conservative Government have had control over Parliamentary time, and, in my opinion, have wasted it.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson (Roxburgh and Selkirk): I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not going to have a post-mortem on the last General Election.

Dr. Broughton: I was merely reminding the House of the manner in which the Conservative Government have been conducting affairs in Parliament since that unfortunate incident of the last General Election. I was doing so in order to make it quite clear to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government could quite easily, if they had so wished, have brought in this Bill. It is only a very small Bill; it will take up very little time in Parliament and the Government could and should have undertaken this work themselves.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kidderminster on introducing the Bill and on the speech that he made when asking the House to give it a Second Reading. The Bill, I feel sure, will go on to the Statute Book. It is the Government's duty to see that it does, and when it is on the Statute Book it will bring credit to the hon. Member and gain for him the gratitude of the medical profession.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: I rise briefly to support this useful and, if I may say so, long overdue Measure. Those of us who are connected with the criminal courts and the work of pathologists know the great importance of their work as an essential part of the administration of justice.
In that administration it has long been apparent to us that the coroner's court is the Cinderella in the matter of remuneration to the professional men engaged in the work of the courts—[Interruption.] I do not know whether we can pursue the Cinderella analogy too far within the sombre context of the work of pathologists and I will not be diverted by the friendly interruptions around me from my intention to restrict my observations to expressing my own enthusiasm for this Measure.
The figures which were read out by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) as the fees which up to now have been prescribed, are staggering in their inadequacy. The time spent on this Private Member's Bill today is time well spent. I will not enter into the merits of the dispute as to whether the Government should have introduced this Measure, but we may assume in anticipation that when the Joint Under-Secretary speaks for the Government he will give full Governmental blessing to the Bill and will do all that is necessary to expedite its becoming an Act.

1.51 p.m

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I shall not detain the House more than a couple of minutes. I suppose I ought to declare my interest, but I certainly hope very much that I may never be called upon to carry out another post-mortem examination. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has introduced the Bill, for considering the interests of a deserving if, perhaps, somewhat misunderstood profession. All I want to do is to raise one point and ask one question.
When a coroner has to decide whether to have an inquest, with or without a post-mortem examination, he sends the coroner's officer to make inquiries. But in most cases he also telephones the doctor in charge of the case, if there is one, and puts to him various questions. I am quite

sure that all doctors reply to such questions on the telephone to the best of their ability, but occasionally it happens that in making up his mind whether to hold an inquest the coroner asks for a report in writing, and sometimes rather a long report, from the medical officer in charge of the case before death.
I understand that a fee can be paid for such a report via the local authority. I want to know whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster does not feel that the fee for such a long report, which may take the doctor a great deal of trouble to prepare, in looking up his notes and so on, ought not to be covered in the Bill in the same way as the fees to witnesses, persons summoned to attend as witnesses and medical practitioners who make the post-mortem examinations that are provided for in Clause 1 (1). If such cases as I have described are not covered by the Bill, I suggest that they ought to be.

1.53 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): This is, as every hon. Member who has spoken has acknowledged, a most useful Bill, and I am quite certain that the whole House is obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), not only for bringing it forward, but for the clear and full explanation which he has given of its provisions. Perhaps the best I can say to him is that I hope it will seldom need to be used in his constituency. The Government will be glad to give the Bill every assistance in its passage through the House.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) struck an unfortunate and partisan note. It would be very easy for me to reply by saying that everything he said applied to the whole of the six years when his party occupied this side of the House. He seems to have forgotten that. Perhaps he will remember it if ever he wins a place in the Ballot and finds that he needs the assistance of the Government to pass a useful Bill through the House. What he says amounts to saying that no Private Member should ever be entitled to bring a Bill forward because it is the responsibility of the Government to bring forward every useful Bill.
If the Bill is passed it will, of course, involve a charge on public funds. The direct charge both for medical practitioners and for ordinary witnesses will be borne by local authorities, but there will be an indirect charge on the Exchequer through the operation of the equalisation grant. This means that a Money Resolution will be necessary before the Bill can make any further progress. I give the assurance that the Government will consider sympathetically taking appropriate action if the Bill gets a Second Reading today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee

Orders of the Day — LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

1.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I understand that many hon. Members are interested in the Measure which is to come next. In some ways I am disappointed, but I hope to oblige the House by moving this Second Reading at not too great a length. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Bill constitute a useful piece of law reform which in the course of time will, I hope, be of benefit to the community.
The House will note that there is no Clause dealing with the last part of the Long Title. The reason is this. The Royal Commission on Divorce is considering legitimacy questions and may make recommendations. It would therefore be more appropriate to wait until the Commission has reported before the matter is discussed in the House. I readily agree to that suggestion.
I am fortunate, in respect of Clauses 1 and 2, that two most important and authoritative legal committees have recommended what is proposed in the Bill. There was the Law Revision Committee, 1937, presided over by that very great lawyer, Lord Justice Wright, and last year the Law Reform Committee, presided over by Lord Justice Jenkins, which considered the Report of the 1937 committee and in the main endorsed its recommendations, which are carried into effect in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.
Clause 1 proposes that certain parts of the Statute of Frauds, 1677, should be repealed. That statute says that contracts which are made by executors or administrators, contracts which are made on consideration of marriage—though strangely not promises to marry, but only contracts made in consideration of marriage—and contracts which are not to be performed within one year, cannot be enforced in the courts, that is, cannot be sued upon, unless they are in writing. Clause 1 proposes that the provisions governing these three categories should be repealed, so that the contracts can be enforced in courts of law just like any other oral contracts if they have not been evidenced in writing.
There is very little doubt that when the statute of 1677 was enacted the safeguards in it were of some importance. As the Law Revision Committee, 1937, said in considering this matter:
At the time when it was passed, essential kinds of evidence were excluded (for example, the parties themselves could not give evidence), and objectionable types of things were admitted (for example, juries were still in theory entitled to act on their own knowledge of the facts in dispute). It was an improvement on this state of affairs to admit the evidence of the parties, even though only to the extent that such evidence was in signed writing.
The Report of 1937 goes on to say:
The classes of contracts for which Section 4 applies seem to be arbitrarily selected, and to exhibit no relevant common quality….The Section is out of accord with the way in which business is normally done….The operation of the Section is often lopsided and partial.
It then gives a good example— an A and B contract:
A has signed a sufficient note or memorandum, but B has not. In these circumstances B can enforce the contract against A, but A cannot enforce it against B.
Perhaps these quotations may be summed up finally by the section, which says:
Today, when the parties can freely testify, the provisions of Section 4 are an anachronism. A condition of things which was advanced in relation to 1677 is backward in relation to 1937.
For those reasons, therefore, it is suggested that Section 4 should be repealed.
The repeal does not cover the contract of guarantee, although the 1937 committee recommended that special


treatment should not be given to that category. Contracts of guarantee could be quite easily, in their view, enforced in the courts in the normal way if the contract was not in writing. The 1953 committee felt that the minority view of the 1937 committee that such contracts should be excluded from the repeal was the right one, and consequently I and those supporting the Bill think that we should keep the law in respect of contracts of guarantee as at present.
Clause 2 deals with the repeal of Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1883, which is a codifying Act including many of the provisions of the Statute of Frauds. It may briefly be said that a contract which has been made for the sale of any goods of £10 or upwards could not be enforced in the courts if there was not a note or memorandum.
The sum of £ 10 when originally inserted was no doubt a significant figure, but it is not so today. In any event this provision leads to abuse. Even so long ago as 1885 the "Law Quarterly Review" quoted Mr. Justice FitzJames Stephen as saying:
In the vast majority of cases its operation"—
that is, the operation of Section 4—
is simply to enable a man to break a promise with impunity because he did not write it down with sufficient formality.
That is the subject matter of the repeal suggested in Clause 2.
Clause 3 deals with a matter about which some of us feel strongly, that written notice of a summary charge should be given when a man is charged otherwise than by summons. At present he gets no written statement at all, and he is often placed in very considerable difficulties in arranging for his defence. My own experience, for what it is worth, is that one so often gets a very limited instruction from the solicitor because of the circumstances so that when one arrives at court one finds an offence of quite a different character. A man says, "I think I am charged with stealing" when, going into court, one finds it is a receiving charge and, therefore, the defence may be in serious difficulties.
A friend of mine very recently had as a client a very respectable young man, who told him, "I have been charged with burglary and I am quite sure it is wrong

because I have never stolen anything at any time. "They went down to the court to find that it was another offence of a different character altogether beginning with "b."
I have had this kind of injustice brought to my notice from a number of quarters, and I discussed it with the Home Office. Subsequently the Home Secretary wrote to me about the provisions of this Clause. He said that he did not dissent from the principle, but he was loath to add to the work of the clerks to justices and the police. I think we can all sympathise with that. Further, he did not really think that the complaint of injustice was very widespread.
I should like to quote from a letter from a solicitor to one of the legal advice services, the Cambridge House Legal Advice Centre, which I know well and which deals with many thousands of cases a year. My friend has been doing this work since 1937. This is what he said:
It is most certainly the casein my experience that serious difficulty is occasioned when persons seeking legal advice on criminal matters have been charged otherwise than by summons.
That is the purport of this Clause.
Many such persons are of a low mentality and even when they are not by nature somewhat slow in the uptake the fact that it is a criminal charge and their liberty is at stake will very frequently indeed so upset them emotionally that they are unable to state clearly exactly what offence they are charged with. Such confusion in the mind of the accused person necessarily puts him at a serious disadvantage in all respects.
It may result, and in my experience has resulted, in a man pleading guilty when, in fact, he could have pleaded not guilty to the particular offence with which he was charged, even although he might have been properly charged and convicted of some lesser offence. Moreover, even when the man is guilty of the offence with which he is charged, if he is not sure what that offence is it hampers the ability of any lawyer to advise him with regard to the question of mitigation.
It needs to be recollected that generally speaking where a man pleads guilty to a criminal charge the Court will not usually grant him official legal aid. If, as is usually the case, his own resources are not sufficient to enable him to pay for the cost of his own defence, he will therefore have to conduct the case in person, and the only thing that a 'Poor Man's Lawyer' can do for him is orally to advise him. In order to do this effectively it is of course essential to know exactly what specific offence the accused is charged with.
It may be said that it is always possible for the lawyer consulted to get in touch with the


Court or the Police by telephone and I here by ascertain the exact charge. This argument overlooks the practical facts of life. It is not always possible to get hold of the appropriate person on a telephone. Moreover some of these inquiries come through third parties, for example, the accused goes to his parson who then rings up some lawyer of his acquaintance, or the wife of the accused, being an out-patient attending a hospital, she mentions her trouble to the hospital almoner, who thereupon rings up some lawyer whom she knows. In all such instances, if the accused cannot state clearly what is the charge against him, there is nothing that can be usefully said to him or to his relatives. If, on the other hand, the accused has been given an official piece of paper with the charge writen out on it exactly, then he does at least know and so will his family and anybody who may be trying to help him exactly what he is accused of.
I apologise for reading at length, but that does very accurately sum up the difficulty of, and what many of us feel to be the injustices to, the poorer person charged with a criminal offence.
I am prepared to give an undertaking that if the Home Office has weighty objections, on the Committee stage I shall be prepared to drop the Clause or to alter it. However, as this is a matter of the liberty of the individual versus what may be called administrative convenience, a good House of Commons point, I hope it will be considered seriously before I may feel compelled to drop it.
In all the circumstances, I hope that the House will be prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

2.10 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I rise to support, and in so far as it is necessary, to second the Motion so ably proposed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). Hon. Members will see, if they look at the Bill, that it is supported by myself and some of my hon. Friends in addition to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Like the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, I shall confine my observations within a brief space, not only to facilitate the discussion and decision on the important Bill which follows this one, but also in the hope that the Bill after that, which is to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) may get a chance. However, there should be some consideration by the House of this Bill, which does

away with certain things that have been on the Statute Book of this country for nearly 300 years.
This Bill is concerned mainly with certain venerable relics of the Statute of Frauds. This, as the House knows, was passed in 1677, though it is fair to say that these relics have not of recent times been treated always with that respect which is normally due to age. There has, in fact, been much criticism of the provisions to be abolished under this Bill. There has been considerable difficulty in their application and, as the hon. Gentleman observed, as long ago as 1937 the Law Revision Committee recommended their repeal. I do not know what is the average time in which Parliament can be expected to act on the recommendations of committees and commissions or whether 17 years is above or below the average; but it certainly is an appreciable time, and that recommendation has now been reinforced by the subsequent report which has been referred to.
Cynics are apt to say that lawyers like to have parts of the law in a confused and difficult state for their own nefarious and professional ends. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear."] I was about to say that I was sure nobody in this enlightened assembly would take that view, but if they do, they will observe that six out of the nine hon. Members supporting this Bill are themselves lawyers, which should dispose of any uncharitable thoughts of that kind.
Clauses 1 and 2, which are the main parts of this Bill, are concerned with the requirement that certain contracts should be in writing in order to be enforceable. Those are set out in Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds and Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, which is in substance the old Section 17 of the Statute of Frauds.
The hon. Gentleman has dealt with the actual provisions, and has pointed out to the House that only one of the contracts referred to in Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds will, if this Bill is passed, be left operative as requiring a memorandum in writing. Even that one is of somewhat doubtful value and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the original Law Revision Committee recommended its repeal. I find in the admirable work of Cheshire and Fifoot on Contracts this passage


dealing with that particular type of contract:
The Courts, in applying this part of the section, may thus be confronted with two separate questions. Is the contract a guarantee or an indemnity, and, even if an undoubted guarantee, was it the main object of the parties' solicitude or a mere incident in a larger transaction? The answers given by generations of judges to these questions produce a result which would have astonished the draftsmen of the statute.
But, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that one remains: but the others do not. The most important of those is, first, the requirement that an agreement which is not to be performed within a year must be in writing and, secondly, the requirement of the Sale of Goods Act that sales of goods to the value of £10 or more must be in writing.
In regard to the first of those, there was the special reason that it was thought that human memory was fallible beyond a year. Yet, if that is so, it would prevent people giving evidence of past transactions in all sorts of cases not covered by this contract provision. The more general reason for all these provisions was the 17th Century desire that all such transactions should be in writing. The House has to remember that in the 17th Century the law of contract was still in its infancy, and developing as an off-shoot from the law of property. And it is still the case in English law—in the Law of Property Act, and so on—that most property transactions have still to be in writing. But so far as the law of contract is concerned, the development of thought since those times has recognised a much greater scope for contracts entered into orally.
There is the further consideration differentiating our position now from that in the 17th Century, to which reference has been made already; that is to say, the change in the laws of evidence. In the 17th Century parties to a contract could not normally give evidence in an action arising out of the contract. Of course, it was continued long after the 17th Century—in fact, until the Evidence Act of 1851; this, as the House will remember, took place a few years after the most famous case in the annals of our courts, the case of Bardell v. Pickwick, in which, though much amusing testimony was given by a variety of

witnesses, neither Mr. Pickwick nor Mrs. Bardell was able to go into the witness box to assist the court on that occasion.
All that was changed by the Evidence Act of 1851, so we are in a different position in regard to that from the position when these requirements were made by the Statute of Frauds. There is also this point in regard to the £10 limit under the Sale of Goods Act, that no doubt in earlier days this represented a far bigger transaction in the monetary values of those days than it does today. Therefore, I hope that the House will approve of the clearing away of these provisions from the Statute of Frauds and the Sale of Goods Act.
Now one quick word about the other quite separate provision made by the Bill in Clause 3, the provision that a person charged otherwise than by a summons should have a copy of the charge made available to him. It always seems to me that it is a most elementary principle that he should be so entitled and, with great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that a question of administrative convenience ought to weigh against that.
I do not claim to have any extensive, up-to-date acquaintance with the procedure of police courts—

Mr. H. Hynd: Magistrates' courts, please.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged;they were normally called police courts a little while ago.

Mr. Hynd: That was when the police handled them; now the magistrates handle them.

Mr. Ede: I wish they did.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry that my disclaimer of having any extensive up-to-date knowledge should have brought so many affirmations of up-to-date knowledge from the opposite benches, but I can confirm what was said by the hon. Gentleman as to the great embarrassment in which solicitors or counsel can be placed by not knowing until the last moment what is the case they have to face. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was at the Bar he moved in the more rarified atmosphere


of the Chancery Division, but I hope he will take account of the great practical difficulties and possible injustices that may arise, and will seek to minimise any administrative inconvenience which may arise from giving effect to this principle.
In both the directions in which the Bill seeks to proceed, it does constitute a considerable advance. I think the House should be grateful to the hon. Member for introducing it, and I hope it will command unanimous support.

2.20 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am not going to add to the very clear exposition that has been given by both the hon. Members who preceded me. This is obviously a good Bill, and there is no doubt whatever about it, as regards the repeal of the greater surviving part of this section of the Statute of Frauds and as regards Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, which itself at one time was in the Statute of Frauds. There is no doubt, too, that in regard to other parts of the Bill there is a very good House of Commons point which ought to be considered, and I put it no higher than that at the moment.
I want to take this occasion to point out what happens on that part of the Bill which is, I think by everybody's agreement, a thoroughly good Measure, appealing to everyone and also overdue. That is the repeal of the writing provisions which was recommended by a Law Reform Committee in 1937. It was recommended again, though I agree with a modification, by another similar Committee in 1953. Of course, these bodies are set up by and with the assistance of the Government of the day to consider proper changes of a non-controversial and non-party character recommending themselves to the legal profession as a whole and in the interests of those who have to make use of the law, civil and criminal, in the ordinary course of their lives and business. They perform an exceedingly useful but limited function. The trouble about it is how their recommendations are to be enforced.
I am not making any party point about this, but I am saying that the machinery for putting into effect recommendations for law reform is lamentably lacking. The present course of affairs means that in this as in other cases the matter stays

where it is until a Private Member's Bill deals with it. I am not for a minute saying that Private Members' Bills are not very useful things, but it seems that, as regards animals and the law, nothing is ever done except by Private Members' Bills. I speak quite frankly and say that I think the animals are very much better looked after than the law, and there ought to be careful consideration of the means by which we can get this kind of thing put through less accidentally and more quickly.
I wish to make myself perfectly clear. I am making no party point whatever, but I am saying that Government after Government have failed to do it, because it is inevitable that Governments should feel that, with so many other things to do, there was no very great pressure about this matter. There is no overwhelming demand for the repeal of Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, and, since the matter is not one about which there is much public pressure, the result is that it gets neglected. It is put right from time to time in bits and pieces by Private Members' Bills, but that is not good enough, and I would suggest, not only to this Government but to any Government, that there ought to be proper machinery for dealing with this kind of thing.
Among the people who sat on the second of these Law Reform Committees was my personal friend, and I am proud to call him that, Mr. Gerald Gardiner, a distinguished practicing lawyer, who contributed to a legal journal recently some extremely interesting suggestions as to the kind of machinery that might be set up. I am not going to give them now, but I beg the Under-Secretary to make himself acquainted with them.
The Under-Secretary, before he came to this House or before he held his present office, was a distinguished member of the Chancery Bar. The antiquities of these things do not come home to members of the Chancery Bar with quite the same force as to the members of some others, but the hon. Gentleman, with a great respect for his own profession, will see the necessity for this House to perform its functions properly.
I do suggest that, in this particular direction, there is a danger of the law falling into unnecessary desuetude and


unnecessary clumsiness, and there is the difficult question of linking up the recommendations which commend themselves universally to the profession with the legislation whereby we might put those recommendations into effect.

2.27 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) for bringing this matter forward, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for the very fair way in which they have put the arguments before the House. Perhaps I may be allowed to apologise for the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but it was unfortunate that this debate came on at a moment when he was obliged to be elsewhere.
I may say at once that the Government have no objection in principle to the objects of this Bill, but I must qualify that to some extent. I think that there should be no great difficulty in proceeding with Clauses 1 and 2, but it is perhaps right that I should say that it may be necessary to have some transitional provisions to deal with existing contracts made under the law as it stands now.
As regards Clause 3, which is the matter which has been mainly discussed in the debate, there are greater difficulties. A provision on the lines of Clause 3 would inevitably throw a very considerable additional burden on those concerned, and particularly on the police. It is quite true, of course, that where the House feels that something is required in the interests of justice, we should not allow mere administrative convenience to stand in the way, but rather more than administrative convenience is concerned if we are to put so heavy a burden on the police at the present time. There is really a balance of national interests to be considered here.
I do not want to pour too much cold water on the Clause, but there are also other difficulties. In the first place, I think it is probably true to say that the aim of this Clause could be achieved without legislation at all. I believe that it might be possible to do what the Clause

sets out to do without amending the law. But, clearly, if the matter is to be dealt with by legislation, then the Clause will need a very considerable amount of redrafting. I must warn hon. Members concerned that that would be so.
I do not wish to advise the House against giving the Bill a Second Reading because of the difficulties which arise over Clause 3, and I can assure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr.Skeffington) and other hon. Members that the Government will certainly consider the matter very carefully in the light of all that has been said today. I cannot hold out hopes that it will be possible to do as suggested, but we will certainly give the matter very careful consideration indeed.
In view of the attitude of hon. Members, the Bill will probably receive a Second Reading. Perhaps I might close by saying that I shall have some personal regrets because I remember that it was the subject matter of the provisions which are to disappear under Clauses 1 and 2 which were set in the examination which enabled me to enter my profession.

2.31 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I regret that the Under-Secretary should have taken the line he did about Clause 3. I hope it is merely a friendly warning that it is a difficult matter, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and other hon. Members who are interested in it, and appreciate all its complexities, will have an opportunity for consultation with the Home Office to see whether the difficulties which have been mentioned can be removed.
I do not think it fair to say that inconvenience and difficulty which might be caused to the police in certain cases ought to weigh against the general proposition that this is a matter in which, at the moment, justice does not appear to be done. I do not share the misgivings of the hon. Member for Hertford about the embarrassment which is caused to solicitors and counsel, because, as a layman sitting on the bench, I am far too often in difficulties where they embarrass me to feel much sympathy with them when the ordinary course of proceedings gives them a purely temporary


embarrassment which generally results in their being able to impress the lay bench with their own exceeding erudition and knowledge of the cases which are to be found in the notes to "Stone's Justices' Manual."

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises—in fact, none better—that solicitors and counsel have a duty to assist the court in a matter before it. It must be clear that their chance of performing their duty adequately is very much curtailed if they do not know what the case is about until they get amidst the hurly-burly there.

Mr. Ede: They have some difficulties from which they generally manage to extricate themselves with considerable success. What I am concerned about is the person who is not represented by solicitor and counsel and is in a much worse position than others.
I trust that there will be a genuine constructive effort on the part of all concerned to discover some way out of the difficulty which the Under-Secretary has rightly mentioned to us, and that something acceptable to all concerned will be placed on the Statute Book through the medium of the Bill.

2.34 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: It is always unwise for any hon. Member to make an attack on barristers and solicitors when there is the remotest risk of a barrister or a solicitor following him. I suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) next sits on the bench he ought to appreciate what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), that it is the duty of counsel and solicitors attending a magistrates' court to assist the court as well as their clients.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have the very gravest misgivings about the attitude which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been obliged to take up

about Clause 3. Like hon. Members who have already spoken, I have seen many cases where the absence of a written statement of offence causes the greatest difficulty and embarrassment. One point about this which has not been brought out in the discussion is that in the great majority of cases this is the sort of case which is not indictable but is the subject of a summons and is usually dealt with by the magistrates at the first hearing, that is, on the day on which the person actually first appears in court.
Where the case is of a more serious character—for example, where a warrant has been issued and where it is an indictable matter—there is often a remand or an adjournment but very frequently in cases of the kind dealt with by Clause 3—I am talking from the professional point of view—one finds that the case is dealt with there and then, on the very first day, and unless the solicitor or barrister has a statement of the charge in advance, it is very difficult for him to meet the case which is put up against him.
I strongly urge the Under-Secretary to reconsider the matter. There is a very great balance of public importance on the side of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). Although no one wishes to embarrass the police or make their difficulties more onerous, nevertheless the public interest requires that Clause 3 should be passed, perhaps in an amended form.
With regard to the two other Clauses, I merely wish to say to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) that, speaking as one who took his legal examinations long after, for example, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I am sure that future generations of law students, bearing in mind Clauses 1 and 2, will call his name blessed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — POOL BETTING BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [29th January], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

2.36 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I am glad, and I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be glad, that the promoters of this Bill have found an early opportunity of bringing it before the House again. As one who has considerable experience of Friday business, I had no doubt that they would find such an opportunity.
The fact that the House was not able to reach a conclusion a fortnight ago has had at any rate one advantage. It has shown that considerable feeling exists both inside and outside the House that that part of the Royal Commission's Report which is covered by the Bill should be dealt with apart from the other recommendations in the Report. The Royal Commission itself expressed the view that it was important that the question of gambling should be considered as a whole and not piecemeal. Hon. Members are familiar with the Report, and they will find numerous references to that, of which paragraph187 is perhaps the clearest.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) will be the first to recognise the importance of the point which I have just made. But he has spent a great deal of time and trouble in getting his Bill drafted, and I certainly do not wish to put this forward as an argument against the present Bill. This part of the Royal Commission's recommendations is more or less self-contained, and although separate legislation may add to the complexity of the law on gambling, it is certainly not impracticable to deal with this aspect of the matter on its own.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is at present no legislation at all covering this aspect of gambling. Therefore, it is not a case of adding a

piece of legislation to existing legislation and making it more complicated. In a sense, it is completing the regulation of a separate form of betting, that is, pool betting, rather than fixed odds and other forms of gambling.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I would not say that it does not impinge on other forms of gambling. But I agree that it can be separated, and I consider it is practicable to deal with it in that way.
The Government do not object to the proposals contained in this Bill and they will assist in seeing that it receives a Second Reading today. That is not to say that it may not need considerable amendment in Committee. I think the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park recognised that. However, if the House does decide to give the Bill a Second Reading today the Government are willing to assist in its further stages, and, in particular, to make available the services of the Parliamentary draftsmen.
In saying that, I must not be taken to have committed the Government to finding time for the later stages of the Bill. If that question arises, it must be considered according to the form taken by the Bill when it emerges from the Committee stage. This is a Private Member's Bill and no Government could give such a guarantee in advance before the Measure had been through its Committee stage; about the Committee stage there should be no difficulty.
Owing to the events of a fortnight ago it is true that four other Bills have now received priority over this Bill in the queue of Measures to come before a Standing Committee. But I believe that those Bills, which we have considered today, will not, judging by the proceedings on them, hold up this Bill for very long.
I have not very much to tell the House about the proposals contained in the Bill which were fully and fairly explained by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park. They are largely based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission and no further information is available to me which I can convey to the House about this form of gambling, except that which may be gleaned from the returns of taxation. Perhaps I should say that the annual amounts staked on the pools have shown a steady increase.
In 1950 the figure was £52 million; in 1951, £57 million; in 1952, £65 million; and, in 1953, £70 million. During the same period there has been a decline in the number of businesses concerned. In 1950, there were 42 and at the end of last year the number was 35.
The only other point I would bring to the attention of the House is that it may be suggested that further consideration of the Bill should be postponed until the results of the poll— which, as I read in the Press, is being organised by the Pool Promoters' Association— should become known. [Hon. Members: "No."] Well, that may be suggested: it has certainly been suggested outside this House. I would only say that the people who take part in the pools are not the only ones concerned. If the House should decide to go forward today with this Bill, the result of that poll can receive due consideration when it becomes known.

2.44 p.m.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) expressed officially the attitude of hon. Members on this side of the House a fortnight ago, and, therefore, it would be wrong of me, on a Private Members' day, to do more than acknowledge the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State in welcoming the Bill and to express the hope that some of the misgivings he held out about its future course may prove not to be accurate prophecies.
I can only hope that when the Bill emerges from its Committee stage it will be in such a form that the Government may feel that they can continue to give it assistance in its further progress, and that, if its course be unnecessarily impeded, they may go even so far as to give it a friendly shove along the road to its place upon the Statute Book.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: This debate is an example, and a good one, of the adaptability of the Houseand of the machinery with which we conduct our business. After we were held up by an outrageous piece of obstruction a fortnight ago, here we are this afternoon, by mutual agreement, endeavouring to obtain the Second Reading of this Bill.
I wish that I had noted a little more enthusiasm in the voice of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. We are a democratic assembly, but I do not see what any poll has to do with this matter at all. This has to do with justice and the observation of proper decorum and business methods in dealing with money supplied by the public. The pool promoters have put up a pretty bad exhibition by running their ridiculous public poll of opinion in order to try to hide their own responsibility. I will say to those promoters now— although the Bill has yet to become an Act before it has any authority over their activities—that they would be wise to announce that they accept the spirit of this Bill. They have lost face considerably since the Bill was first introduced.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Has my hon. Friend considered the figures which were given by the Under-Secretary? Do they not indicate that, in fact, there is little need for this Bill in view of the steady increase in the turnover of the pool promoters, which signifies that the customers are very satisfied?

Mr. Baxter: There are times when the "mugs" have to be cared for. My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaking liberty for "muggery." Liberty has responsibilities.
There is one other point and I hope I shall not be called to order if I endeavour to make it. There is more humbug about gambling in this country than in any other country in the world. Instead of all this nonsense— since we are a gambling people and nothing can stop us—I should like to see a national lottery out of which the State would do well. But I realise that I shall be called to order if I pursue that argument. I bless this Bill and urge the Minister to take it up with enthusiasm and help to make it into an Act as soon as possible.

2.48 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: What I have to say to the House will take some time but I assure my hon. Friends that I have no intention of opposing this Bill or of talking it out.
I happen to represent the biggest pools organisation in the country, which is in


my constituency. I am a democrat, and irrespective of my own opinion I feel that it is very wrong indeed if a section of the community which also believes in democracy should not be permitted to have its case stated without interruption and without comments that those making that case are being paid to do so. I think it very sad indeed if those people cannot have their case stated fully.
I sat through the whole of the debate a fortnight ago and afterwards I was horrified at some of the comments made to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, Central (Captain Hewitson) by those people who are supposed to be his friends. If similar comments had been addressed to me, I should have asked for your protection, Mr. Speaker, and I am certain that I should have obtained it. I am not in any way condoning what the hon. and gallant Member did. That is his own business, but he is free to do it in a democratic country. When such opinions are expressed to an hon. Member who is accused of being paid by somebody for what he has been saying, we are coming to a very sorry pass in a democratic country and in any political party.
I have no interest of any sort either personal or monetary in the pools industry. I do not know how to start to fill in a pools coupon and I have no intention of finding out. It does not interest me, but it interests a lot of people. Certain sections of the community have taken advantage of this thing we in this country call "private enterprise" and have built up one or two big organisations. They have approached me or, I should say, my constituent has approached me.
In my constituency there are all sorts of types of businesses. The constituency is just as big as the City of Westminster. It is the main business area of the North. I have all sorts of approaches made to me. So long as I believe in democracy, I take the point of view, irrespective of what I may think myself, that if a constituent wants an opinion expressed on the Floor of the House I am the right person to put it for him. That does away with any possibility that some person outside may be making a statement for something that he may be able to get for himself.
Having made that clear, I would say that in the Exchange Division of Liverpool there is the biggest pools organisation in the country. The head office is there. During the war I had the honour to do ambulance work under the leadership of Mr. John Moores. He was my senior in an ambulance division. I know the tremendous amount of assistance he gave to the Coalition Government and to the Labour Government which followed in using his services for the benefit of the country. That cannot be denied by anybody, however bitter he may be about pools organisations.
I had the honour to work under him and I found him to be a man of the very highest integrity. I like him personally. I know him well and I had to take directions from him during the war, in difficult circumstances, in the Liverpool area. It is the custom in the House, Mr. Speaker, that when the Queen's Speech is read you, for the purpose of greater accuracy, obtain a copy. I intend to read the copy of a document that the pools promoters themselves have issued in reply to this Bill. I make no personal comment at all.
All I do is to put their point of view so that it will be on record when the Bill is discussed in Committee after Second Reading. Then the whole story will be told from their point of view as well as from the other point of view. They say:
Not unnaturally a good deal of weight is attached to the fact that the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, which presented its Report to Parliament in March, 1951, recommended the publication of accounts and information by football pool promoters in much the same form as that proposed in the present Bill and equally naturally the supporters of the present Bill seek to pray in aid such recommendations.
It is, of course, only right that the findings of the Royal Commission should be given the proper consideration warranted by the Commission's distinguished composition and the time and labour devoted by it to this very controversial topic of gambling. One says proper consideration because let us not forget that the recommendations of a Royal Commission are not sacrosanct. It is within the memory of the House that a previous Royal Commission, which reported in the early'30s, recommended the total prohibition of all 'off the course' pool betting which would, of course, have meant the total prohibition of football pool betting.
There may be moral issues involved; but we may well recognise the fact that there are millions in this country who believe in pool


belting and do not think that any Royal Commission or anyone else has a right to interfere.
It may be said that this Bill is not, in that sense, an interference with what has become a very popular and very widespread pastime indulged in by millions each week of the season."

Mr. William Shepherd: On a point of order. Is it in order to read a lengthy document prepared by outside sources for presentation to this House?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order to read anything that is relevant. I do not know how long the document is. The hon. Lady has not been reading for very long.

Mrs. Braddock: I mentioned that I did not want to express my point of view and that I felt that in a democratic assembly the view of some body outside should be put here if they could not express it themselves. I am reading it because it is their statement and nobody else's. It continues:
The supporters of the Bill would have it believed that it is designed to protect the pool punter against himself; for there appears to be no very pressing public demand for such a Measure.
The vast majority of pool punters appear to be perfectly satisfied with the way in which the pools are run. Indeed, it is generally accepted that the larger pools are honestly and efficiently run and those larger pools are responsible for upwards of 90 per cent. of the pool business in this country.
In any case it has been said by the Royal Commission that it is not the duty of the State to take steps to ensure that the backer is afforded safe and trustworthy betting facilities.
Let us, therefore, for a moment, consider whether the pool backer has any reason to be other than perfectly satisfied with the running of the pools.
Accountants' decision final. Each and every one of the principal pool firms include in their rules this rule which, in terms if not in form, is common to all members of the Pool Promoters' Association, which comprises all the principal firms, with possibly one exception. The rule is this: 'Accountants' decision. In the interests of clients generally and of fairness and efficiency, independent qualified accountants (chartered or incorporated), supervise and control all computations of the amounts of pools and all dividends payable, the payment of winnings, and the observance of these rules. To prevent disputes from arising and delays in payment to winners it is a further basic condition that on all matters connected with the conduct of our pools and in particular the ascertainment of winners, the awarding and amount and payment of winnings, disqualifications, and the meaning and application of these rules, the decision of such accountants (or any one of their partners)

on such evidence as they may require shall be accepted as final and in honour binding on all parties including ourselves.'
Pursuant to this Rule the Accountants each week issue a Certificate in relation to the Pool with which they are concerned in much the same form as this:
'We hereby certify that the Dividends printed above have been duly computed and that stated monies, commission and expenses have been properly accounted for under our supervision and in accordance with the current Rules.'
One of the rules (in accordance with which the Accountants certify that the dividends have been duly computed and the stake monies, commission and expenses properly accounted for) is the one which contains the undertaking as to the promoter's deductions for expenses and commission. Again in the case of the larger promoters this is similar in form and reads as follows:
'We pay Winners the total amounts staked on each Pool subject to our right to deduct our Commission.' "—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it to be inferred that when the hon. Lady assures us that she has no intention of talking this Bill out, it does not necessarily denote that she has not in mind the purpose of reading the Bill out?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order, but perhaps I might say something about the general propriety of reading speeches. The reading of written speeches, which has been allowed in other legislative assemblies abroad, has never been recognised in either of our Houses. An hon. Member may read extracts from documents, but he should use his own language in giving the sense of longer excerpts. That is the practice and rule of the House. I think the hon. Lady is quite capable of putting, in her own eloquent and forceful way, the arguments in the document from which she is reading.

Sir Charles Taylor: Further to that, is it not in order for an hon. Member to read a quotation or a document in this House? Is it not in order for an hon. Member to read any quotation to this House, whether it is long or short? The hon. Lady who is making this case has said that she wishes to put the case of her constituent. She has said that she does not necessarily agree with that case, but does feel that the case for the constituent should be put. She started off her speech in her own words, and she then went on to read


the case which had been submitted to her by her constituent. With the greatest of respect, I do suggest that the hon. Lady is quite in order in reading to this House a letter or a document that has been prepared by her constituent.

Mr. Julian Snow: Would it be in order, with a view to clarifying the situation, to ask the hon. Lady how much there is of the document? Secondly, since it is normal usage to circulate documents for hon. Members to examine at Committee stage, would not that be the more convenient way of doing it?

Mr. F. P. Bishop: Is there not another point, Sir? Is it not the rule of the House that Members addressing the House should take responsibility for the views they are expressing and for the facts that they are quoting? The hon. Lady has said, quite frankly, at the beginning of her speech, that she is not expressing her own views but presenting to the House a brief, as I understand it, for which she herself is accepting no responsibility at all. Is that in accordance with the rules?

Mr. Mulley: While I do not wish to query your Ruling in any way, Mr. Speaker, I should not like it to go from this House that we did not want to hear the case which the hon. Lady is putting. I do think it would be desirable to have the remainder of the case. I might say that I have not had an opportunity of examining the document.

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member does make himself, or herself, responsible for what he or she says, but it is quite in order for an hon. Member to represent the views of his constituent, or represent a point of view which he feels ought to be represented, without necessarily pledging himself to full agreement with the position put forward. That is perfectly correct, and as long as the hon. Member is as frank about the matter as the hon. Lady has been, I see no harm in it at all.
With regard to the reading of speeches, what I have said is the practice of the House. Hon. Members frequently read extracts from documents which have been prepared by various interests, to

summarise a case which they wish to have presented on their behalf. While that is quite in order, the rule against written speeches rather conflicts with it, if the extract is too long. It is a matter of balance between the two. I think the hon. Lady, on these Rulings, knows how to proceed.

Mr. M. Follick: You did say "summarise," Mr. Speaker. Would it not be better if my hon. Friend gave us a summary of the pamphlet which she is reading?

Mr. Speaker: It depends. I have known some summaries, orally delivered, which were longer than the originals.

Mrs. Braddock: I am sorry to cause all this difficulty, but I think that I did state, at the beginning, that I am not making a speech. I believe I stated that in an assembly of this sort, if a constituent, representing a section of business or of industry or of trade unions, wanted a statement on record in the House—not a speech from an individual but a statement of the constituent concerned in relation to a matter which was to be discussed in the House—the best way of presenting it was to read the statement of the person, firm or trade union, in order that it could be used for discussion and debate at any stage, either in the House or in Committee.
I am not prepared to summarise this statement; indeed, I am unable to do so. I do not want to put a personal point of view. I have accepted responsibility for putting the point of view of my constituents—a business firm who are in a big way of business—and it is their case, not mine. I know of no other way in which their point of view may be recorded in HANSARD, and if I am not permitted to make their case as they desire it to be made, and I have to summarise it, I may find that I have put an entirely different point of view from that which they want to put.
It is only for that reason that I obtained a copy, and I was proceeding to read this document for the sake of greater accuracy. This is not a speech, but a statement prepared in answer to proposed legislation. If I am to be told that I cannot proceed, I must reluctantly


sit down and let it be known that in this House of Commons, when a firm, a business, or an interest of any sort wishes its case to be put, it can be put only by somebody who agrees with it, or is prepared to summarise it rather than to express it in the way in which the interest concerned wishes it to be expressed.
I should like a Ruling in the matter, because it depends entirely on the Ruling which you give, Mr. Speaker, whether or not I am able to proceed. I commenced my speech by saying that I was not expressing a personal opinion but the opinion of constituents whose business is being considered as a matter for legislation. My constituents considered that the only way in which their case could be stated properly was by having their statement read, rather than my going through figures and facts which, quite honestly, I do not understand, and in which I have no personal interest. It is entirely up to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In the circumstances, the hon. Lady had better proceed.

Mr. Baxter: I should like you to give a Ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker. We all agree that constituents have a right to put a case. Where we believe that they have an injustice or a case to put, we can put it, but surely this is something new? If a Member of Parliament says, "I do not understand the case, but I claim, for my constituents, the right to be heard verbatim on the Floor of the House of Commons," that is virtually making the people in this case equal to Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Member of this House thinks that a view that has been put to him is deserving of expression in the House of Commons, he is quite entitled to give it. The point of judgment is, not whether an hon. Member agrees entirely with the view expressed, but whether he thinks the view made to him is of sufficient truth and importance to warrant discussion in this House. Often we get, in the course of our Parliamentary duties, matters of a very technical character put to us, on which we are not individually able to judge, but that does not preclude us from putting the matter to the judgment of the House.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Would it not be helpful to our progress if the hon. Lady divided her statement into two, gave the other half to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), and allowed him to read it in his turn to speak, so that we could get on?

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled sufficiently on this point. I think we are losing time by trying to put a stop to the hon. Lady. I think she should be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Nabarro: May I revert to the original point of order I put to you, Mr. Speaker? With respect, I would submit that that has not been fully answered, and that it has been obscured in large measure by the subsequent points of order that have been made. The point that I put to you was whether it was in order for an hon. Member to try to read out a Bill. I have here a copy of the document that is being read. I have followed one and a half pages of it so far, but the document is 21 pages long, and if we are to listen to the whole of it, it must be clear to everybody in the House that this Measure has no chance at all of being dealt with today.

Mr. Speaker: We have it from the hon. Lady herself that she is not trying to talk out the Bill. Whether the Bill is talked out or not has nothing to do with me. However, if the document is as long as that, I think I must now ask the hon. Lady to summarise it.

Mrs. Braddock: Doubtless this is very unusual, but I am one of those peculiar people who do unusual things from time to time, and, obviously, people who do unusual things make regulations and Standing Orders very much more elastic than they have ever been, perhaps, in the past—and much more necessary, maybe.
I feel that I have read sufficient already to prove that the document has been very carefully prepared in answer to the Bill. I think it is unfortunate that there is no possibility of the whole of it being read to be recorded in HANSARD. I think that that is unfortunate because it will give an impression outside very different from the impression that the promoters of the Bill desire to exist outside. I do not know if the position is that every hon. Member has received a copy of this document or not?

Mr. Mulley: The promoters of the Bill would like my hon. Friend to put her case, even though she must do so briefly. However, I think it would be convenient if the pool promoters would circulate to every Member of the House a copy of the document. As the first promoter of this Bill, I have not received such a document. It will be a help during the Committee stage if all hon. Members have a copy. Then we could consider it.

Mrs. Braddock: It is quite obvious that I have not time to read this document as the representative of my constituents because there has been continuous interruption. In view of the fact that there is not time, I shall take the responsibility of asking the pool promoters, when they understand what has happened in the House, to circulate copies of this document. Whether they do so or not is up to them completely.
I leave the quotation and will not say any more about it except for this. It has been said that the pool promoters themselves are conducting an inquiry among the people who take part in the pools to learn what their opinion is. I do not know to what extent that will have any influence on any legislation which is to be put into operation. I leave the matter there until whatever decision they themselves take or whatever decision is taken here. [Interruption.]
I think some hon. Members, on this side of the House at any rate, are just attempting to make fools of themselves in their interruptions when they know perfectly well what the position is; for I have been perfectly honest with them and told them that if I were asked by a constituent, the biggest pools concern in my constituency, to make a statement, I should do so. I told them what the position was. I think some hon. Members are being most uncouth and unkind in the way some can be— and I know they can be— when they make the comments which they make.
It is quite possible that when the Bill has passed its Second Reading I shall be accused by some of them—I know I shall by one person whose name is on the Bill—of having some monetary interest in relation to it.

Mr. Follick: No one says that.

Mrs. Braddock: I know what is being said and I know the comments that are being made on certain things I was going to do. I shall sit down because I consider—

Sir C. Taylor: I also have a copy of the statement, which is only eight pages long. Three pages have already been quoted by the hon. Lady. Would it not be right for her to quote the other five pages? It is not 21 pages long. If the hon. Lady wishes to quote the other five pages, surely she should be allowed to do so?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Lady should be left to direct the course of her own speech. She has come to a certain conclusion, which I think is probably a wise one.

Mrs. Braddock: I have decided, owing to the peculiar noises that have been going on here while I have been speaking, that it would be in the interests of the House and of everybody concerned if I did not pursue the course of reading the whole of the document.
I think it is most unfair and I think it is revealing, in the House, a great attack upon the ordinary democratic rights of the ordinary business man or individual in this country. Obviously, some other repercussions would flow from the fact that I should be continually interrupted if I continued to read the document, and so I leave the matter there, with this comment: I have made an attempt to satisfy my constituent, to satisfy those who have asked me, as their representative, to put their point of view. They will see how it has been obstructed in certain ways and they will possibly come to their own conclusions.

3.18 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: About a year ago—perhaps a little less—I had the privilege of bringing in a Private Member's Bill and the sorrow of seeing it talked out by an hon. Member opposite. It took a considerable time to get that Bill back to its original position and, finally, to get it passed, an achievement which gave me great pleasure. In those circumstances, I can assure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) that I will not try to talk out this Bill. I know


exactly how the hon. Member would feel if I did.
Nevertheless, I am deeply suspicious of the Bill and I hope that it will be thoroughly vetted when it reaches Committee. I am not at all sure that I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State sounded a little lukewarm about the Bill in considering what might happen to it afterwards, because I cannot understand what is the particular reason for the Bill.
Many hon. Members who were in a previous Parliament, if their memories are not too bad, will recall that the pools were very strongly attacked at that time by an hon. Member who is not in the Chamber today, as well as by many others. I myself was strongly opposed to increasing the tax on the pools, by 30 per cent., in the Finance Bill of 1949. I had extremely strong support from the late Mr. Oliver Stanley concerning the great unfairness that was being shown to one particular form of gambling. I think that this matter was so well thrashed out in the House at that time that those who are the enemies not only of the pools, but of gambling generally, and of many other things as well, saw that there was no likelihood of making a fresh approach on those lines.
Therefore, I am wondering whether this Bill, which is on slightly different lines, is not possibly a new method of attack. Why exactly are the pools being attacked in this way far more than other forms of gambling? I remember that in 1949, in the debate on the Finance Bill, Mr. Oliver Stanley said, "Why do we not wait until we hear what the Royal Commission has to say?" Then the idea was that whatever Government was in power would bring up the whole question as recommended by the Royal Commission, not only with regard to betting pools, but with regard to all other forms of gambling, and that something big and impressive would be brought forward.
Did that happen? Not a bit of it. We just get piecemeal proposals attacking this one form of gambling. Most of us know that what will come of this Bill, if it goes through in its original form, is that the turnover of the different pool companies will be shown and the average man, unless he is a complete fool, will

see that the best thing for him to do if he wants to put his money in and to get something really big out is to go to the biggest companies, and so, bit by bit, the smaller ones will be eliminated, until we find ourselves in the position that there will be only one or two big companies left.
Are we to say that the hon. Gentleman who has brought this Bill forward is doing this to help these two or three big monopoly concerns? Is he fighting for these bigger, richer and colossal organisations in order to kill the smaller ones? Is that his idea? Or is it rather to get all this in the hands of one or two people so that the Socialist Party, if they get into office again, will be able very easily to break the whole thing altogether?
I have taken the trouble to read the Report of the Royal Commission and the evidence submitted to it, and I think it is a subject which ought to be discussed in this House. I hope that we shall get to the Committee stage as a result of today's proceedings, so that we can more fully discuss the details of this matter. I am not suggesting that this is a subject that should not be discussed, but I ask, why should this particular organisation be chosen? It was attacked bit by bit, periodically, by the Socialist Party when they were in power, and they made it more difficult for those concerned by raising the tax to 30 per cent.
I well remember the arguments in 1949. They have been forgotten by most of us today, and this little Bill has slipped in. I remember them because I put down an Amendment at the time on the subject. People were then being circularised by the pools organisations, and I remember a newspaper stating that I had had about 300 letters on this subject sent to my private address; and this was complained about by some people. It is very odd that of all those who are my constituents and who, I know, are interested in pools, not one has written to say that this is a good Bill. None of the investors seems to want it, whereas all the people who have written to me about it are the same kind of people who would be writing to me against anything to do with gambling and would complain if the Brighton Pavilion were made a brilliant gambling centre—something which I have always advocated.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has read a very lengthy statement, and quite rightly so, on what the associations actually seem to want. This is the point that interests me. It is pointed out in the statement she read that the pools have perfectly good and highly respectable accountants dealing with the situation and that since 1949, when the 30 per cent. tax was imposed, the Government themselves have had every possible means of checking up and finding out whether the whole thing is properly run. The only possible reason for the Bill can be the curiosity of some hon. Members opposite and, as far as I can see, the desire by some of them to break the lesser pools organisations, something which many of my constituents do not want to happen, in order to make the bigger monopolies in control of everything. I cannot understand it, and I hope that some hon. Gentlemen who did not speak in the last debate will be able to explain what it is all about.

Mr. Mulley: Had the hon. Member been present on the previous occasion, he would have been better informed.

Mr. Teeling: Even I read my HANSARD next morning.
3.26 p.m.
Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees):I will do my best and answer some of the questions of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling). The case for the Bill has really been made out by his own Front Bench. If the Government were satisfied that all was well, they would not have given the backing that they have given to the Bill; and if, as the hon. Member says, the collection of the 30 per cent, tax gives all the information that is needed, I cannot understand why the Government agree that the Bill should have a Second Reading. As for the suggestion that the Bill is a device to squeeze out the smaller pools, the figures given by Members on the other side prove that that is what has been happening all along the line. The pools are already reduced to about 30, of which six handle 90 per cent. of the whole business.

Mr. Teeling: Surely that was the result of the vastly increased taxation forced on the lesser pools by the Labour Government.

Mr. Chetwynd: I cannot accept that. The larger pools, through their bigger mediums of publicity, advertising, and so on, and the bigger rewards which, naturally, they can offer in a competitive field of that kind, attract more and more clients or investors, whatever one calls them. That has been happening under existing circumstances and the Bill makes not the slightest difference to that tendency.
I should like to say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). This is not in any way hostile to what she tried to do, but I ask her to think a little more clearly about the precedent that was sought to be established. In my view, it was extremely dangerous. First, the case is that constituents, or an association of constituents, have not been able to get their case properly presented in the House of Commons. I do not think for a moment that that is so. In the last debate the case was put by at least two speakers out of five in the House. It could have been put again today by Members in their own words, adapting their local association's case.
Secondly, within the fortnight that has elapsed between the abortive Second Reading of the Bill and today, the pool promoters could have circularised every Member of the House with a copy of their statement, but they have not done so. They could have made statements or put advertisements in the Press stating their intentions and their case. Every day of the week we get statements from interested parties, who do not expect someone to read out their case in the House of Commons, but they send us through the post a statement of their views on particular Bills. I should have thought that the right procedure in this case would have been for the football pool promoters to have done the same thing.
Furthermore, what happens if, in my hon. Friend's constituency, another constituent writes to her with a long document giving reasons for wanting to support the Bill? Does my hon. Friend then feel bound to read, first, the long statement of those who are against it, followed by the long statement from those who support it?

Mrs. Braddock: Yes, if necessary.

Mr. Chetwynd: That would be an intolerable abuse of the procedure of the House.
Then, suppose that on a political matter the Conservative Party in the Exchange division were to write to my hon. Friend saying that they were not able to get their case put forward in the House because of the incompetence of Members of their party, is my hon. Friend again to read it out to the House? I am sure that in that case she would not understand what the case would be.

Mrs. Braddock: Not unless they are talking foolishly.

Mr. Chetwynd: That is the position to which that kind of procedure would have reduced us had it been allowed to continue.
Therefore, I say, what is all this fuss about? If the case of the football pools is as it has been stated, why are they so hurt by the terms of this Bill? In fact, it springs clearly from two main principles. I do not want to stress them, because that has been done fairly thoroughly before, but there is need of some regulation of these vast enterprises which have grown to such proportions that they are really becoming a public problem, and, therefore, they do need public regulation.
Then the public interest is involved. It is not a moral question of whether we support gambling or are against it, but vast sums of money are involved and it is right that the matter should be regulated as the Bill proposes. Secondly, there is a need for public accountability of the vast sums of money which are invested, so that the people who supply that money will know what they are getting and what their prospects are likely to be.
Clause 7 relates to cash betting, and I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend ought to be pressed into withdrawing it because, as it is argued, cash betting leads to increased gambling. I do not think that is so. I think that at a time when the wager is made by ready money, one is likely to reduce the stake to a lower figure than would be the case if one were paying a week after with the hope that, in the meantime, one would win. I hope that my hon. Friend will keep that point in mind.
I welcome the fact that the Government have given their blessing to the Second Reading of the Bill and that they are willing to assist in its later stages. No commitment was given at all as to the time that would be given, but I hope that when we have passed this Bill through all its stages the Government will be further impelled to give more time to it.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I claim, with due modesty, as was said during interruptions in the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), to have been responsible, in co-operation with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), for securing sufficient time this afternoon for this Bill to have a resumed Second Reading. I therefore take the greatest possible exception to the small amount of time that has become available being taken up by the reading out of a long and tedious document because the pool promoters, had they so wished, could have secured proper publicity for their case by spending a tiny part of their vast funds on circulating it to all those who support their respective enterprises.
I am in very much the same position as the hon. Lady. I do not invest in football pools. I have no objection to people gambling, and I cannot find any cause for complaint against thousands of my constituents who, every week, invest in football pools. I do not necessarily say that I am entirely in agreement with all the proposals that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park has embodied in his Bill. However, I am very interested in one Clause, Clause 4, which deals with a requirement as to information to be supplied and published by the registered pool promoters.

Mr. H. Hynd: The key Clause.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very anxious that there should be proper divulgence, and full publicity for all the investments made week by week in these football pools enterprises. The hon. Lady, on behalf of the football pool promoters, made a very legitimate point in their defence. She said that chartered and incorporated accountants examine the


finances and the records of these enterprises week by week and issue appropriate certificates. But that is not all that is necessary to safeguard the interests of investors in the pools. Under the Companies Act, 1948, the most stringent safeguards are provided for the proper conduct of businesses, largely in order to protect the interests of shareholders and investors. No such similar safeguards are provided in the case of persons investing in their weekly flutter, who are the football pool investors.
It is no good the pool promoters issuing certificates to the effect that there has been a competent examination of the investments in the football pool fund week by week, without showing how much money out of the total investment has been disbursed by way of prizes, how much money has been absorbed on account of administration and advertising and publicity, how much money has been retained for profits, and how much money has been set on one side for any other undisclosed purposes. That is the information which this Bill surely seeks to provide week by week.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the parallel he has drawn between the position of a shareholder and an investor under the Companies Act is only true if he also says that the person who gambles with the pools is in the position of an investor in a company? Surely a better parallel is that the man who goes in for a pool is in the position of the consumer in relation to an ordinary company—he has not the same protection as the shareholder, and there is no reason why he should have it.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. and gallant Friend referred to a better parallel, but presumably a private investor subscribes capital to a joint stock company for the purpose of participating in any profits, in the form of dividends that may flow from his investment. Unfortunately, those dividends are always heavily taxed at source. The investment in the football pools may be taxed to the tune of 30 per cent. by way of the football pools duty but the winnings are not subject to personal taxation, when received by the investor in the pools.
That is an interesting academic argument, but the general point I want to make, and I think it is a valuable point, is that today about £70 million to £75 million is being invested every year in football pools, so far as I am able to ascertain. It may be more. At all events, it is a large sum of money, and whereas my hon. Friend said that accounts deal with the situation, my view is that there is a singular dearth of financial information available for the investor in these pools. What I am anxious to ensure is that the investor receives a full return on the sum of money that he puts into the pools and that there is no unnecessary or excessive expenditure by the promotors or hidden or secret reserve retained by the pool promoters.

Mr. Teeling: We have already pointed out to my hon. Friend that all the figures go to the Treasury for that 30 per cent. tax, and if the Treasury is satisfied, is that not enough? Can my hon. Friend tell us of any public companies which have to disclose publicly their turnover?

Mr. Nabarro: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is a competent and extremely well-advised businessman, ought to know better than to suggest that an investor in the pools can ascertain the cost of advertising or administration. He cannot do so. All that can be ascertained is that the total investment in the football pools may be worked out by arithmetical processes from the yield annually of the 30 per cent. football pools betting duty. He cannot ascertain any of those other expenses to which I drew attention.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: In fact, he does not know.

Mr. Nabarro: I am glad to have the hon. Member's support.
I draw attention to this facet of the problem, which is the one in which I am most interested. I think the punter, the investor in pools, ought to have much more information as to how the funds are being employed week by week. I drew the analogy of the Companies Act and I say that there must be proper safeguards for all investors. These football pool businesses have largely grown up in the last few years and no statute yet provides for suitable protection for the investor. There is a shroud of secrecy


surrounding the business of these pools. If they are everything which the hon. Lady claims them to be, let the pool promoters publish the financial details of their businesses.

Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. I did not make any such statement.

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Lady did not make it, then I inferred it from her speech.
I ask that there should be full publicity for the financial affairs of these pool concerns, in order that tens of thousands of my constituents and others, and I myself, may be able to judge whether they are handling their finances and the interests of the investors with the care and prudence which all of us would expect from enterprises of this magnitude.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Some time ago, the hon. Gentleman said that, on examining the document, he found it contained 21 pages. A few seconds later, an hon. Gentleman who sits on the bench below him indicated that he had counted it and made it eight. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us which of the two hon. Members can count most accurately?

Mr. Nabarro: The document has 21 pages in it. I am informed, although I have had no opportunity of checking it, that the particular passage which the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpol, Exchange was reading at the time when I raised a point of order runs only to eight pages out of the 21, and that the remaining 13 pages comprise supporting evidence for her case. I have no crystal ball and, therefore, could not be aware whether the hon. Lady intended to read out the whole of the 21 pages, or not.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am sure that none of us would accept the modesty of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), but I am also sure that many of us will accept his arguments about this Bill. Where some of the critics of the Bill are lamentably muddle-headed is in failing to recognise the strong element of public interest which is involved in any organisation which solicits from £70 million to £75 million of public

money and hides from those who respond to their appeal the details of exactly what they do with it.
Surely, that is the fundamental issue here, and throughout our history it has been necessary time and again for this House to protect many people who have not sought its protection but were very much in need of it. After all, the building societies, investment trusts, friendly societies, insurance companies and all the rest of those who have sought the confidence of the public and have asked them to put their money into their hands, owe a responsibility not only to those whom they euphemistically call investors, but to the public at large.
I would say that when pool promoters presume, as they do, to intrude upon the privacy of our letter boxes week after week and ask us to become investors, then their responsibility is greater still. It may be that this point is not within the scope of the Bill, and I have had difficulty in deciding about it in my own mind, but I do think that, if possible, some curb should be put on the flood of propaganda and literature of one kind and another which is thrust into millions of homes, and on to many who have no desire to enter the pools, but are rather indignant when this material comes to them as regularly as it does.
The House will appreciate that I am not a football pools investor. I have not the intelligence to fill up a football pool form. All I can pretend is that I can probably fill up my Income Tax form, and I am sure we all agree that that is a small strain on our intelligence.
I regard gambling in this country as a grave social evil. I know people are free to please themselves about the matter, but we are entitled to our views about a large industry which is wholly devoted to speculative enterprise. I am against gambling in any shape or form, whether it is on the Stock Exchange, in property, take-over bids, football pools or anything else.
I do not believe it is a good thing socially and morally for the people of this country to be indulging in football pools to the extent that they are at the present time. But that is of no moment in connection with this Bill, although it would perhaps be unfair of me to support it so vehemently without disclosing


where I stand on the general question of gambling.
The element of public interest must remain supreme. It is not enough for an hon. Member opposite to say that the public can surely be satisfied that things are all right, when the Customs and Excise collect £20 million in tax under the betting duties. As the hon. Member for Kidderminster pointed out, that is not enough. There is no disclosure of the assessable profits of these people. There is no disclosure of how much they spend on administration. They claim the right to make a deduction for their commission, for which they announce a percentage, and for their expenses, for which they do not announce a percentage. There can be lavish extraction from the so-called investments for administrative and other purposes which are not disclosed to the public.
I hope the House will recognise its over-riding responsibility to the public. Whether the investors have asked for this Bill or not is beside the point. It is our duty as the House of Commons to see that large enterprises of this kind are properly run and not run in secrecy, and that all reasonable disclosures are made, not only to the investors but also to the public at large. That is what this very modest Bill proposes to do, and I heartily support it.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I feel exceedingly sorry that the pools promoters themselves have not had the sense to realise that the publication of figures is in their real interest and have not volunteered to disclose them in order to avoid the necessity of the House having to pass a Bill on the subject.
I cannot understand the views of my hon. Friend who tried to confuse an investment in a lottery—I use "investment" in a euphemistic sense—with buying a commodity. When we buy a commodity, we know whether or not we are getting value for our money by comparison with other commodities, and whether we get a bad or a good deal depends on our discretion. But it is different when there is an arrangement whereby investments are sent to a central

place and the whole arrangement is based upon the extraction of a commission rate and a certain amount of expenses.
In those circumstances, it is necessary, in the public interest, that there should be a disclosure of the revenue and of the method by which the revenue is disbursed. I understand that there is nothing to be hidden here. Before the Royal Commission, 82½per cent. was said to be the total amount distributed each week by the pools, roughly 15 per cent. in expenses and 2½ per cent. In commission, not an unreasonable amount. I repeat that it would have been very much better had the pools themselves made the disclosure without force.
I understand—and I say this for the pool promoters, who have had rather a rough deal today—that one of the reasons they do not like this Bill is because, if accounts are published, the public may see the smaller pools in a worse light than the larger pools. I think that should be stated, because if it be the case, it is reasonable to expect that the larger organisations will have a very much smaller rate of commission and probably take out a smaller proportion in expenses. It may well be that the reluctance of the Association to agree upon disclosure is because of their desire to protect the smaller pools from the effect of such a disclosure showing that, by comparison, the smaller pools are taking more out of the revenue received. I make that point because I think it only fair to the promoters.
I hope that this Bill will get a Second Reading, and that, even now, the pool promoters will see that its provisions are reasonable, and that, before the Bill becomes law, they will start to publish the details of their dispersals.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: I wish to make one point on the subject of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I am not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, whether you were in the Chair when, in the course of concluding her remarks, I understood my hon. Friend to say that hon. Members on this side of the House obstructed her in the reading out of a rather lengthy document which she attempted to read.
For the purpose of the record I think it should be said that it was you, Mr. Speaker, who made it abundantly clear that the reading of such a lengthy document was not the sort of thing to which the House should be subjected, and that my hon. Friend should, if possible, summarise it. She was not able to do so and, in the event, she had to sit down; but I think, Mr. Speaker, that it should be stated that there was a clear Ruling by you on the subject.
It would seem to me that the object of this Bill is to demonstrate to investors in the pools whether they are getting a fair deal at the hands of the promoters. That we all accept. It is the man sitting down eating his tuck in the pit and scribbling away on his pools pro forma— or whatever it is called—that we have to protect. I do not concern myself with the moral issue of gambling here. It seems to me that this is purely concerned with the matter of seeing that the investor gets a square deal.
I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of some constituents who have written to all of us and who appear to think that somehow this Bill will limit gambling. I do not take that view. When this Bill becomes an Act, and should further legislation then appear desirable, in the event it may increase gambling, and that is a different matter. But I think that some people are under the mistaken impression that this Bill will lead to a limitation on gambling.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon. I know nothing at all about pools and pool betting. There are very many things about which I know nothing, but my ignorance has never been more completely exposed than it was the other day when my daughter asked me to help her to fill in her pool coupon. It was something much too complicated for me.
All my life I have been connected with business, and in a small way with big business, but not with any business so big as pool betting has become today. All business is rightly required to furnish the most complete and adequate details of its financial arrangements for the benefit of its shareholders and the public. I

cannot understand why this vast pools business should not be required to furnish similar information for the benefit of those who invest their money in it, and for the benefit of the public as a whole.
I venture no opinion about the detailed requirements set out in the Bill. They are a matter for detailed examination in Committee. Having listened to the debates this afternoon and a fortnight ago, I feel that the case for giving the Bill a Second Reading, and sending it for detailed examination in Committee, has been fully made out.
I would say one other thing in regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). Of course, it is right that hon. Members should come here prepared to represent the point of view of their constituents. But what appeared to me as a terrifying prospect for all of us was the possibility that our constituents might be given the view that they have a right to say to us, "Never mind what you think about this; here is our statement; you read it out on the Floor of the House." I hope that the Ruling you gave, Mr. Speaker, is sufficiently clear to make it obvious to our constituents that that is not a duty which they can impose upon hon. Members. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and a thorough examination in Committee.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: In the two or three minutes left may I make it clear that I support the Bill? I am delighted that it has had all-party support. There was a reference on the other side of the House to an attack by Labour Members on the pools. It has been amply demonstrated this afternoon, and by the Press support given to the Bill throughout the country, that there is no question of a party attack. This is a desire that has been widely shown throughout the country, not in the form of an attack on the pools but in the form of seeking the kind of information which, as hon. Members have said, is available in the case of certain other concerns.
I was very sorry when an hon. Gentleman opposite thought fit to say that he had grave doubts as to the motives of the promoters of this Measure. Those motives have been clearly shown. The Bill should


be to the benefit of the many millions who are, I will not use the word "investors" but, to borrow the word used by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), "punters" on football pools.
It was the Joint Under-Secretary of State who said that the people who spend money on pools are not the only people concerned. That is true. All citizens are concerned because of the growth that has taken place in pools betting. In case I am in any danger of talking the Bill out, I conclude by offering my hearty congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and thanking the Joint Under-Secretary for the support that he gave to the Bill, though he did not support it wholeheartedly. I wish it every success in its further stages.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING (AIRPORTS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th February],

"That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I was engaged last week in discussing the demerits of this Measure and I wish to continue my speech today. I hope that I shall be able to do that without there being any undue accusation against me attempting to talk out the Bill. I have observed that there appears to be a growing view that there is something immoral in being involved in such a process; but it depends upon the nature of the opposition and of the Bill with which we are dealing.
If anybody thinks that I am willing to see any further splashing about of this poison, alcohol, I hope that by now they realise that I shall have something to say whenever an attempt is made to introduce a Measure such as this. Although no speeches have been made in support of the Bill, at any rate those who sponsor it share none of the defects, if defects

they were, of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). They did not advance a single argument about this absolute invasion into the rights—

It being Four o'Clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

Orders of the Day — PRICE CONTROL (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, to proceed to the Second Reading of a Bill which has not been printed, owing to the carelessness of the hon. Member who should have moved its Second Reading?

Mr. Speaker: While not accepting that, I should say that there is nothing to stop a Bill being read a Second time, although not printed, although the usual procedure is to postpone consideration of it. Does the hon. Member object?

Sir H. Williams: Yes, Sir.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (ECONOMY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. A. Allan.]

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I am glad to have this opportunity of raising the subject of efficiency in Government Departments, and I must also thank my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for coming here this afternoon at very short notice.
This is a wide subject and one of great importance to our future. It is often said that our ability to earn our living as a nation depends on continually raising production. I know that is a problem chiefly for private enterprise, but public authorities—and especially the nationalised industries—do play a considerable part in our productive activities. It has been said that one of the greatest dangers to our export trade is inflation, and I think that nobody will deny that one


of the main causes of inflation is excessive Government expenditure.
I therefore make the plea that constant attention should be given to the question of efficiency in every department of every public authority. We ought to see that every job which needs to be done is looked at very carefully to make sure that it is being done in the best and cheapest way. It should be emphasised that one of the biggest improvements may be obtained by examining our various organisations at the highest level, and I am sure that all would like to congratulate the Government on their amalgamation of some Ministries—the Ministry of Pensions with the Ministry of National Insurance, and the Ministries of Transport and Civil Aviation.
It is probably too early yet to judge the results of those amalgamations, but no complaint seems to have come from the other side of the House, as I am sure there would have been some had there been any to raise. It will be surprising if those two amalgamations do not result in a substantial saving of staff without reduction in the standard of service; in fact, let us hope with an improved service.
The Government have also made one or two improvements on a rather lower level. The Ministries of Labour, Pensions, and National Insurance, and the National Assistance Board are combining some of their small local offices in some of our smaller towns. All these examples suggest that the Government are continually examining their organisations at different levels and in different ways. This must result in some saving of money, and I hope that the Financial Secretary would be able to tell us something more of what is being done in that direction.
I think that the Government are to be congratulated, too, on the reduction in the number of civil servants in the last two years. In October, 1951, there were 685,000 civil servants, and in 1953, 660,000—a reduction of about 3½ per cent. That may not sound very much and probably would not satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). At least, it is progress in the right direction, although, admittedly, some of this reduction must have been due to the removal of unnecessary restrictions and controls, a subject

which I shall not touch on today because it would rather confuse the issue.
It clearly shows that the Government are keeping their eyes on the possibility of making minor as well as major improvements. One thing is abundantly clear and that is that my right hon. Friend practises, at home, the doctrine which he preaches in this House and elsewhere namely, economy in the Treasury Estimates themselves, which were reduced by about £75,000 in the Estimates for this year, compared with those for last year. Let us hope that this reduction will continue, without impairing in any way the Treasury's watch over economy and efficiency in other Government Departments.
Then there is the question of local government. The experiment of the very go-ahead Coventry Corporation has received a good deal of publicity in the Press. It may not be quite so widely known that many other local authorities, large and small, have employed staff on setting up organisation and methods divisions. For instance, the London metropolitan boroughs have combined to appoint an organisation and methods team, which has done valuable service to the 28 individual London boroughs.
Neither the Ministers in the Treasury nor those in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would wish to say anything which might be taken to be interfering with the independence of local government, and I was glad to see the encouragement given to local authorities—by recent answers to Questions—to study the Coventry experiment. I hope that the recommendation that local authorities should continue to form organisation and methods teams will be speedily adopted all over the country, especially in view of the great anxiety which is felt at the rise in rates which is taking place almost everywhere.
The Coventry experiment was concerned mainly with the administrative side, but there is a much wider field than this. Undertakings such as municipal transport systems may also provide a field for experiment of this kind. Then there is the National Health Service, especially the hospital service, which is costing, at the moment, £ 270 million per annum of the taxpayers' money. We should all agree from our own knowledge that


hospitals show a varying degree of efficiency—I do not mean with regard to the standard of equipment or medical skill, but in regard to their management. If all hospitals could be brought up to the level of the best there would be a substantial saving of Government expenditure. Small improvements added together would make a considerable total, and I hope that the Government will give consideration to this matter.
Then there are the nationalised industries. I do not want to say too much about them, because we had a debate on the subject early this week, but they should be absolutely unremitting in their efforts to improve efficiency and economy in administration and productivity. There is a story of a bright person who was supposed to have saved a certain railway many thousands of pounds by suggesting that the carriages should be labelled "G.W." instead of "G.W.R."— or it may have been "L.N.W." instead of "L.N.W.R."; I do not know which.
That story reminds me that, even today, there could be a saving in the same field. When one goes to Victoria Station the first thing one sees, outside, is a large notice which says "British Railways: Victoria Station." Inside the station one finds that the tender of every engine, and every coach, has a panel on each side which bears the words "British Railways" and a crest. There are also many thousands of notice boards scattered about railway stations, bearing, at the top, the words, "British Railways." I do not say that they are all hand-painted, but they have to be produced in some way or another, and as it is fairly obvious that our railways are British railways and not any other country's, we could surely dispense with those words and be content with "B.R." Perhaps that could be looked into by British Railways.
There must be many other examples of similar and other kinds in nationalised industries, which could be looked into and which might give plenty of scope for saving and economy. I hope that the Government will continue their present policy of being ever more watchful of public expenditure and of making economies whenever possible.

4.10 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) said, this is both an enormous and an enormously important subject, and it is one which, as he and the House will appreciate, is difficult to treat adequately during the time at one's disposal in a half hour Adjournment debate. I fully share my hon. Friend's desire that there should be the utmost efficiency and economy in all forms of public expenditure. That has always been important, but perhaps never more important than in these days, when the Government play so large a part in the lives of the community and spend so large a proportion of the community's money.
There are two main ways in which efficient and economical administration can be sought. One is by changes in policy which result in it being possible to govern less; changes in policy, that is to say, which reduce the functions of Government. I do not propose, except indirectly and obliquely, to deal with that aspect of the matter, partly because it raises such large issues, and partly because I imagine that most of such changes would involve legislation, and so would not be in order in debate now.
The essence of my hon. Friend's clear, helpful and interesting speech, was the emphasis that he put on the second side of the matter; that is, given roughly the present level of Governmental activity, how so to organise that activity as to secure its being carried on in the most efficient and economical way. There are one or two things on that aspect which I would like to say, and I start by fully endorsing my hon. Friend's objectives and adding that we do seek to the best of our ability to secure those aims. We seek to secure them in a variety of ways.
My hon. Friend, for example, mentioned the merger of certain Departments of State. The merger, for instance, of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Civil Aviation has already resulted in a saving of some 40 posts, and it may be possible to make some more. That is one example taken out of many of how a reorganisation of the system of Government does achieve some


economies. Such changes are reflected, as my hon. Friend has indicated, in the reduction it has been possible to make in the total numbers employed in the Civil Service.
My hon. Friend quoted the figures of the reductions so far published since 1952. A quarterly White Paper is laid setting out the size of Departmental staffs. If one takes the latest one, that published in October last, one sees shown a reduction of some 28,000 since 1st January, 1952. The White Paper which will embody the figures as at 1st January, 1954, is not quite ready, but I can tell the House with safety that it will show a further reduction during the last quarter of some 3,000, making with the 28,000 about 31,000 since 1st January, 1952.
Expressed as a percentage of the total Service that, if my mathematics are right, works out as a reduction of 4·5 per cent., but I do not know really whether that percentage gives an adequate representation of the reductions that have been achieved. In the total from which this figure is calculated, roughly half the figure of Civil Service staffs consists of Post Office staffs, and, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Wallace), who is on the Front Bench opposite, will agree, they are in a somewhat different position in that the Post Office is perhaps the oldest of our nationalised industries.
These people are engaged in an activity more equivalent in many ways to an industrial service than strictly to the business of government. Reductions in Post Office staffs are perhaps quite a different matter from reductions in Governmental staffs in the strict sense, and if we exclude them we find that the reduction in the numbers engaged in the business of central Government works out at very nearly 10 per cent. since 1st January, 1952. In the trade and industry group of Departments the percentage is appreciably higher.
It is, of course, relatively easy to save quite a considerable number of staff when a big block of work goes, such, for example, as the abolition of identity cards, certain forms of Governmental trading or certain systems of rationing; but many of the savings which have been made in the public service during the last

two years have been made not merely in that way but also by administrative savings—that is to say, prunings in one direction or another and reorganisations of work. These are the savings which are achieved only by a great deal of hard, applied work.
Although it falls to a representative of Her Majesty's Treasury to present these figures to the House, I should not like to give the impression that the Treasury seeks to claim all the credit for the results so far achieved. There has been a great concerted effort by all Departments, and I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends and their advisers for the efforts which they have made in this direction. I would go further and say that the effort has been made right down the line to the most junior members of the staff, and pay tribute to the efforts of the staff at all levels for the successful exertions which they have made in the direction of streamlining and making more efficient and more economical the vast Governmental machine.
In this connection, it might be convenient for me to mention and pay tribute to what are known in the Service as staff suggestion schemes. These schemes are roughly equivalent to those adopted by some progressive industrial firms in which the staff themselves is encouraged to put forward any ideas they may have for improving efficiency. I understand that in many Departments these schemes have produced excellent ideas, some of which it has been possible to adopt and all of which have been most helpful in their intention and in the ideas embodied in them.
My hon. Friend referred to another aspect of this work, which, as he said, has attracted—and very properly attracted—considerable attention in the Press and elsewhere; and that is the activities of the Organisations and Methods Division of the Treasury. Considerable attention has been attracted by what my hon. Friend described as the Coventry experiment. I should make it clear that the Treasury Organisation and Methods Division was concerned in the affairs of Coventry only at the express invitation and request of that city. It is, of course, the fact, as my hon. Friend said, that the organisation and affairs of local authorities are entirely their responsibility and concern, and our rôle in this context is


simply that, having been asked to provide advice and assistance, we were very glad to be able to do so.
Although it is not the first occasion on which I have done so, I should like to pay tribute to the Coventry Corporation for their enterprise in having suggested that we might be able to help them in this way and to express the hope that the recommendations which the Treasury Organisation and Methods Division was able to make may be of assistance to the city in achieving the economies in administration which it has shown that it desires to make. The recommendations, of course, are in themselves confidential to the city corporation which asked for them. But they have in fact become pretty well known, and I was glad to see that the city corporation is seeing its way to accepting, as I understand it, the great body of them.
The matter has attracted almost embarrassing kindly attention inasmuch as the attention which has been focused on this has exposed us to many demands for assistance of a similar nature, bigger demands, I am afraid, than either staff or staff time will permit us fully to meet. It is a fact that much as we desire to help organisations throughout the sphere of public administration, there is, I say frankly, a limit, and a limit which is very easily reached, to the amount of trained manpower that we have available for this purpose.
Indeed, I have suggested to one or two organisations and authorities who have been good enough to approach us on the matter that perhaps the method most economical in staff which we could adopt for giving assistance in this way is by rendering assistance to groups of authorities in the forming and training of their own organisation and methods divisions. There is a very good example of this in the Metropolitan boroughs, which have been applying a system of that kind.
I should perhaps say a word about how the Organisation and Methods Division itself works. Its first duty is concerned with promoting in every possible way efficiency in the Government service. The central body so concerned is, of course, the O. and M. Division of the Treasury itself which, on an advisory basis, serves some 50-odd Government Departments. Some of the major Departments of the

Government also have their own organisation and methods units with which the Treasury O. and M. Division keeps in close touch.
In addition there are certain fields of common services, such as office machinery, where Treasury advice is generally taken throughout the Service. We also act as a common information centre and publish in co-operation with the Departmental O. and M. officers monthly O. and M. bulletins. Perhaps the most important function of all is training on behalf of the whole Government organisation and methods service.
The main job of the organisation and methods service is a continuing one. It is a job which continues and is never finished. With the assistance of the O. and M. service of the Treasury, full-scale reviews of the great majority of Government Departments have in fact taken place over the past few years. I would in this context pay tribute to the businessmen who have in some cases provided independent and authoritative opinions as members of the review committees. Some of the reviews take months, some take years to complete, some are being completed, but it is not a once-for-all job.
The plan is that, after a reasonable interval, after one review of, say, five years, another starts. We have already started a second systematic review in the case of several Departments and we intend to go ahead with others. Methods will be continually improved and new methods will be applied to new circumstances. Organisation is never a static thing and it would be a great mistake to suppose that we shall ever reach finality in this process of investigation and review. In addition to the services I have mentioned our men are always available to any division or department that asks for them to deal specifically with any particular problem that may arise. This also is a very valuable aspect of the work that is done.
I noticed that my hon. Friend, going a little outside the central machinery of government, referred to the possibility of savings in the Health Service. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will give these suggestions all the consideration which they deserve, but, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is


not a matter which I can, or should, answer.
I hope I will not have left the impression on hon. Members that the Government are complacent on this subject or believe that no improvement is possible, or that O. and M. can provide a complete answer to everything and to all problems of organisation, machinery and the rest. Of course, we are under no such impression. We believe that the idea which organisation and methods has established is a good one, and that some such organisation is, and should be, a permanent and valuable part of the Government machine. We are convinced that it has done a modest but useful job, both during and since the war, in tightening up the efficiency of the Government machine. We think there will be a continuing need for it.
The staff required are people of very special qualities, and this, apart from anything else, limits their numbers. It would be improper for me at this Box to refer to names, although those experienced in this matter will recall several very distinguished public servants who have rendered great service in this connection. I should like to say myself, and I know that the Departments they have served will agree, how very much Government and good government in this country owes to public servants who have done this pioneer work of such value in this division.
I am well aware that in the limited time which my hon. Friend and I have had at our disposal we can cover but a corner of this matter, but I hope I have said enough to indicate the great and continuing concern of the Government that Government machinery, vast, complicated and expensive as it is, should be constantly reviewed with a view to maintaining the greatest possible efficiency and economy in numbers and in cost. We seek to do this partly by policies which make the task of Government actually less but also, as we have been discussing this afternoon, by the other method of continual review, continual improvement and the application of the latest and most progressive techniques of public administration.
I hope I have made clear our continuing concern in the matter and the fact that we are always only too glad, whether from my hon. Friend, with his experience, or from other hon. Members, to have advice and suggestions as to what can be done to carry on with a job which continues to be important and the very importance of which means that it will never be completed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Four o'Clock